Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock,Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID WARNINGS (WORKERS' LOST TIME).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour the position generally prevailing about the payment of employes, including pieceworkers, whose work is either delayed or interrupted by air raids, air raid warnings, or air-raid practices?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): Apart from arrangements that may have been made by individual employers, recommendations have been made by a number of employers' organisations to their members, in some cases after discussion or in agreement with the unions concerned. These recommendations vary considerably, being adapted to the circumstances of the various industries, but in general they provide a substantial degree of compensation to employes, both hourly paid and pieceworkers, for time lost owing to air raids or air-raid warnings.

Mr. Banfield: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to carry out his answer in practice so far as trade board regulations are concerned?

Mr. Brown: That is rather a complicated matter, but I shall be very glad to do what I can.

Mr. Mander: Does that apply to air-raid practices as well as warnings?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir, it refers to warnings.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that when Mr. H. Burnstone, of Otchard Place,

Southampton, was recently sent to an Army rest camp from the Southampton Employment Exchange, he was offered employment at 52s. 6d. per week, whereas his possession of a Board of Trade ticket entitles him to the Maritime Board rate of £13 2s. 6d. per month; that, when he refused this offer, he was turned off benefit, although later this was reversed owing to the intervention of the man's trade union; and whether he will see that men are not penalised for refusing jobs in camps, and other military establishments, at rates less than their normal trade union rates?

Mr. E. Brown: If, as I presume, this worker's name is H. Bernstein, my information is that although he failed to start at this job after accepting it, his unemployment benefit was neither stopped nor suspended.

Mr. Gallacher: As complaint has been made by this man and similar complaints are being made by others, will the Minister take steps to ensure that this does not happen?

Mr. Brown: I do not accept that it has happened.

Mr. W. Whiteley: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the hardships arising by the operation of the waiting days in the payment of unemployment benefit, having regard to the fact that many collieries are laid idle for one or two days due to shipping and transport difficulties?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will remember that I discussed this question recently with him and one of his colleagues, and that they promised to put the case to me in writing, with a full statement of the reasons for suggesting the change. I have not yet received this statement.

Mr. Whiteley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been discussions between the Durham coal owners and the Durham miners, and that they are themselves agreed that this is a very beneficial thing?

Mr. Brown: They know that as far as benefit is concerned the matter will have to be considered by the committee.

Mr. Shinwell: When men are forced out of employment by Government action is there not a case for full consideration?

Mr. Brown: The question is about delay due to shipping and transport.

Mr. Georģe Griffiths: Is it not a fact that upstairs not long ago the Minister bitterly opposed this reconsideration, and turned it down?

Mr. Brown: I am never bitter.

MINERS.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make it clear to those who make such appointments that miners who have been out of work for many years and who are not likely to be employed in the mining industry again may be appointed to air-raid precautions and other Civil Defence paid posts, in spite of the fact that their occupation is scheduled in the list of Reserved Occupations?

Mr. E. Brown: As I indicated in a reply to a question by the hon. Member for Lancaster, Newton (Sir R. Young) on 5th October, instructions have been issued which will enable the restrictions imposed by the Schedule to be removed in cases of the kind to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that certain newspapers have published a statement to the effect that 500 miners were required in the Doncaster area where they could earn £6 per week, whereas 200 miners were given notice at Markham main colliery, near Doncaster, on Saturday, 7th October; and, in view of the hardship suffered by persons travelling long distances to take up jobs that do not exist, will he instruct Employment Exchange managers to warn unemployed persons against such unauthorised and inaccurate statements?

Mr. Brown: If any worker will take the trouble to inquire at his local Employment Exchange as to the likelihood of employment so advertised being available for him, the exchange will do its best to advise him. I do not think the Department can be expected to do more than this.

Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman deprecate such publicity in view of the hardships that he knows are caused to men who travel from one place to another because they are anxious to obtain employment?

Mr. Brown: Certainly, and, as far as I can, I will see that such men inquire locally.

Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman warn the Employment Exchange managers to make it known to men that they ought not to travel long distances because of newspaper advertisements for jobs that are not open to them?

Mr. Brown: It is impossible for any manager to know when a job mentioned in an advertisement is not in his area.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the Minister consult the Minister of Information over this?

ASSISTANCE.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an assurance that husbands of women who have been evacuated with young children will be allowed from the Unemployment Assistance Board a sufficient sum for purchasing food after other essential expenditure has been met?

Mr. E. Brown: The practice of the Unemployment Assistance Board where the wife and children of an applicant have been evacuated is to limit the adjustment in the allowance to such amount as is reasonabe in view of his changed circumstances. I am not aware that the amount of the adjustment has led to any complaint, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind and will let me have details I will have inquiries made.

INSTRUCTIONAL CENTRES.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Labour whether the instructional camps and centres for the unemployed are being closed; what is the reason for this; and what use is to be made of the camps in future?

Mr. E. Brown: The Ministry of Labour instructional centres were closed on the outbreak of war, as it was not anticipated that the need for the kind of training which they provided would continue long under war-time conditions. Further, it was anticipated that in general the men under training at such centres, or suitable for such training, would not be willing to remain or to go there during war. The numbers attending had, in fact, dropped rapidly, even before the war.


All except two, which are in remote districts, were taken over at the outbreak of war by other authorities. Some are being used by the Home Office for approved schools which have been evacuated from dangerous areas. I should, perhaps, make it clear that the Government training centres, for the training of semi-skilled men, are in full activity.

EMPLOYMENT (GOVERNMENT POLICY).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further statement to make on the Government's plans for providing full employment?

Mr. E. Brown: The Government's plans are directed to organising the national effort for the successful prosecution of the war. In the period of transition to the war-time organisation of industry there must inevitably be some dislocation of employment, but the full resources of our man and woman power will in due course be required and utilised.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has indulged in a number of generalities. Can he be more specific as to how the Government propose to mobilise the labour available?

Mr. Brown: Certainly not within the limits of any Parliamentary answer.

WESTON BISCUIT FACTORY, SLOUGH (EMPLOYES).

Mr. Banfield: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether the fair-wages clause is being observed at the Weston Biscuit Factory, Slough, seeing that they are Government contractors;
(2) Whether he is aware that persons wishing to leave their employment at the Weston Biscuit Factory, Slough, are refused their unemployment cards, and are obliged to complain to the Employment Exchange before they can get them; and what action does he intend to take to remedy this state of affairs;
(3) How many persons have left their employment at the Weston Biscuit Factory during the past four weeks; and how many others have been employed there?

Mr. E. Brown: Any question relating to the observance of the fair wages requirements by Government contractors is a matter for the contracting Department concerned. I am making inquiries into the other matters raised by the hon. Member, and will communicate with him in due course.

Mr. Banfield: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that there has been a certain amount of intelligent anticipation of the question, in view of the fact that this firm has raised wages by 1d. an hour this week?

Mr. Brown: I prefer to have all the facts before me before I answer that.

RESERVED OCCUPATIONS.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in order to lessen the rigidity of the Schedule of Reserved Occupations, he will establish machinery to allow people unable to find employment in their registered category to be freed from the restriction placed on their employment in other directions?

Mr. E. Brown: The Schedule of Reserved Occupations does not restrict the employment of any person except as a whole-time member of one of the Defence services. I would point out also that, as I mentioned in reply to an earlier question, instructions have been issued which will enable the restriction imposed by the Schedule to be removed in cases of the kind which my hon. Friend doubtless has in mind.

EMERGENCY HOSPITAL SCHEME.

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Minister of Health the total number of persons undergoing restraint in mental asylums who have been released under the Emergency Hospital Scheme to go to their homes; and what arrangements are made for their care and supervision?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I am advised that the number of persons who were so discharged to their homes from mental hospitals does not exceed 200. No patient was discharged unless selected after careful investigation of all relevant circumstances, including his home conditions, as suitable to be cared


for and supervised by his relatives at home. The Board of Control are reviewing the arrangements for the care and supervision in war time of individuals living in the community who are suffering from mental disorder.

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Minister of Health the number of beds in the hospitals in the Metropolitan police area available for sick children at the present time; and what are the arrangements under the Emergency Hospital Scheme for the normal treatment of children undergoing specialist treatment of one kind and another who are unable to go far afield to receive it?

Mr. Elliot: Many of the beds in the general hospitals are available for children, but the figures I have do not distinguish children's beds from adults' beds. There are, I understand, in general, beds available for all requiring hospital treatment. Although a number of beds have been reserved under the Emergency Hospital Scheme for the treatment of casualties, the ordinary hospital services remain available. There should, therefore, not be difficulty in obtaining specialist treatment required by children who remain in London, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind I should be glad to look into it, if he would let me have particulars.

Colonel Nathan: In view of the answer, how does it come about that the right hon. Gentleman's Department has informed me, as chairman of the Infants' Hospital, Vincent Square, that, notwithstanding the specialist nature of that hospital, as a hospital for children which, under the orders of his Department, was evacuated at the outbreak of the war, it is not desired that the hospital should be reopened?

Mr. Elliot: There are a number of places where specialist treatment can be obtained, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires to open the hospital for specialist services I shall be very glad to go into the matter.

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Minister of Health the total number of hospital beds available for surgical and medical treatment of the civil population resident in the Metropolitan police area at the present

time compared with October, 1938; how many beds are available for emergency casualties due to enemy action; and, in view of the return of many women and children from reception areas, will he reconsider the whole question by authorising an extension of the number of beds at the disposal of the civil population, and consequently release members of the medical profession from their war stations in order to enable them to carry on their normal duties, on the understanding that they return to their war stations should the military situation render that course necessary?

Mr. Elliot: There are normally approximately 97,000 hospital beds in the Metropolitan police area, excluding beds for mental patients. Under the Emergency Hospital Scheme an additional 14,000 beds have been set up in hospitals in the outer parts of the area, while approximately 13,000 beds have, for the time being, been closed in certain of the inner hospitals. Accordingly, the total number of beds available in the Metropolitan police area is now about 98,000. Approximately 55,000 are immediately available in hospitals in the area of the London Sector Scheme (which is rather larger than that of the Metropolitan police area) and these can be used either for casualties or for ordinary sick in need of in-patient treatment. As I have previously stated both in this House and elsewhere, hospitals have been instructed to admit to their unoccupied beds all cases requiring inpatient treatment.
As regards the release of members of the medical profession to cam' on their normal duties, arrangements have been made under which doctors can either go on indefinite leave, subject to recall if required, or (with the exception of doctors filling posts as registrars, house physicians and house surgeons) go on part-time service under conditions recently drawn up in accordance with the advice of a committee which included several eminent physicians and surgeons. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the constitution of this committee and of the conditions referred to.

Following are the particulars:

The Committee.

Sir Bernard Docker, K.B.E. (Chairman).
Dr. G. C. Anderson, M.D., Ch.B.
Sir Girling Ball, F.R.C.S.
Dr. H. E. A. Boldero, F.R.C.P.


The Viscount Dawson of Penn, G.C.V.O., K.C.B., K.C.M.G., M.D., F.R.C.P.
Mr. C. H. S. Frankau, C.B.E., D.S.O., F.R.C.S.
Sir Cuthbert Wallace, Bt., K.C.M.G., C.B., F.R.C.S.
Sir Charles Wilson, M.C., F.R.C.P.

The Conditions.

1. Each officer who is transferred to part-time will make his services available to the State, if required, for the equivalent of four days in every week, the remainder of the time being at his own disposal. The precise manner of giving effect to this condition, that is, the particular days or parts of days when the officer is to be on call, will be a matter for arrangement with the Medical Superintendent, subject to the approval of the Group Officer. A record of the times when the officer attends for duty will be kept by the Medical Superintendent.

2. He will receive a retaining fee equivalent to one third of the salary which has been already offered to him. This fee will cover any services rendered under the previous paragraph, so long as he remains on a part-time basis.

3. Should circumstances make it necessary he will be required to resume whole-time, in accordance with the undertaking he has given, and in that event payment of the full salary will be resumed.

4. No officer who elects to go on part-time will be eligible for an allowance for board and lodging, or for travelling between his home and his official Headquarters.

5. Similarly such officers, being no longer whole-time temporary civil servants, will not be entitled to official leave, or to sick pay during temporary absences due to illness.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the number of hutment hospitals erected, or in course of erection, under the war-time emergency medical scheme; the number of beds in such hospitals, and the number of doctors, surgeons, nurses and other personnel attached to them; and whether experience shows that those hospitals already in operation are functioning satisfactorily?

Mr. Elliot: In England and Wales 104 hutment hospital schemes, of 1,037 huts, comprising 38,120 beds, have been decided upon. In 71 of these schemes the estimate of cost submitted by a local architect has been approved and construction of the huts has begun. In the remainder, tenders are being awaited. Two of the schemes comprising 23 huts, have been completed and in several more the roofing and walling has been finished so that they could be used, in an emergency, if required. Medical, nursing and other personnel will be allotted to the

hutment hospitals as they are completed, but I am not in a position to give the numbers. As the huts are not yet actually in use, I cannot express any opinion on their functioning, but I have every reason to trust that it will be satisfactory.

Mr. Gallacher: May we take it that the medical and nursing staffs will be fully and adequately remunerated for the services that they give?

Mr. Elliot: They will be remunerated on the same terms as those of their comrades who are serving already in hospitals.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are very serious complaints from doctors in many of these institutions about the treatment they are receiving?

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether the sector officers in charge of the emergency medical service in various districts were consulted before the letter sent out on 6th October; and what steps he is taking to ensure that there are an adequate number of doctors available in the event of air raids;
(2) whether he is aware that house officers never have written contracts with hospitals; why such an assumption was made in the letter of dismissal from the emergency medical service sent out by his Department on the 6th October to a large number of doctors; and whether his Department propose to fulfil its obligations for the past five weeks work?

Mr. Elliot: The letter to which the hon. Member refers was sent out in error. All group officers have now been advised as to the actual position of the doctors in question. The answer as regards obligations incurred during the past five weeks is in the affirmative.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Health the number of old age pensioners in York and Rotherham, respectively, who were also in receipt of public assistance relief on the last day of September, 1939; and the figures of same for the country as a whole?

Mr. Elliot: I regret that figures are not available for the day mentioned. According to a special return made to my Department the number of old age pensioners in receipt of poor relief during the week ended nth March, 1939, in the city of York was 602 and in the county borough of Rotherham, 994. The corresponding figure for England and Wales was 265,493.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these old age pensioners be taken off relief by giving them an increased pension?

Mr. Tinker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the percentage of the whole?

Mr. Elliot: A round 10 per cent.

WATER SUPPLIES (POLLUTION).

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to get local authorities to do their utmost to reduce to the minimum the increased risks of pollution of rivers and water supplies due to wartime activities and the reduction of vigilance in consequence of smaller staffs?

Mr. Elliot: I believe that local authorities will do their utmost in present circumstances to reduce these risks to the minimum. I am unwilling at the moment to add to their heavy burdens of correspondence by special instructions on the point.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of citizens are dependent upon clean rivers for their peaceful piscatorial pursuits; and will he make a special and generous effort to prevent the sort of pollution which took place in the last war and during the 20 years of peace?

Mr. Elliot: As I say, I think the local authorities are alive to these considerations, and I am afraid I cannot send further circulars to the local authorities just now when their correspondence is so heavy.

Viscountess Astor: Why send a circular? Why not send an order and tell them to do it at once.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

EVACUATION.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether he can make a statement on the position of unofficial evacuees in the reception areas; and what arrangements are being made to deal with cases of hardship among them consequent on the refusal to pay billeting allowance in respect of them?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid that the Government's evacuation scheme cannot appropriately deal with persons even of the priority classes who may have moved on their own account from one part of the country to another. Where, therefore, children have been evacuated under private arrangements the responsibility for their maintenance must remain with the parents and other liable relatives. If the circumstances of the parents or relatives should unfortunately worsen and they should in consequence become unable to continue to maintain their children, it would, of course, be open to them to apply to the public assistance authority.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that there are thousands of such cases in South Wales and elsewhere, and that in the early stages the local authorities paid them billeting allowances, and that they have since withdrawn them; and, further, whether, since these people are left stranded, he will seriously consider some arrangement by which they either remain where they are or are transferred to their own districts?

Mr. Elliot: As I say, I do not think it will be possible to make payments where people have evacuated by private arrangement.

Mr. A. Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider cases where these people are not living with relatives, but with friends in many instances who cannot get payment from anyone?

Mr. Elliot: I will consider any case that the hon. Member may bring before me. It is a primary matter for the billeting officer, but I shall be glad to consider any such cases the hon. Member may care to bring forward.

Mr. Sorensen: Does this also apply to those evacuees who remain in country areas in response to the appeal of the Government that they should do so?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. In general the scheme would not apply to people living with their own relatives. I do not think it could generally be expected that the Government scheme of billeting and the Government's appeal were meant specifically to apply to billeting claims in such cases.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the difficulty in arranging for the transference and redistribution of evacuees from one reception area to another; and whether he will advise that county councils should exercise supervisory and co-ordinating powers in that respect?

Mr. Elliot: The transference and redistribution of evacuees from one reception area to another is in the main due to the need for grouping the children as conveniently as possible in school units. The county councils are themselves, in the great majority of cases, the local education authority in the receiving areas and are thereby in a position to supervise, in consultation with the receiving districts, the transference of children from one district to another, where the Ministry's senior regional officer has agreed to this course. My information is that a number of county councils have been active in promoting transferences required in the interests of education.

Mr. Sorensen: Do the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman also apply to evacuated mothers? If not, what can be done about them?

Mr. Elliot: I was referring more particularly to the evacuated children, where the need for a reshuffle is greater owing to the necessity of operating the school unit. The transference of mothers is a more local problem and does not involve such great difficulties. I think that in general a certain amount of rearrangement there has been carried out by the Department.

Mr. Ede: Where a local authority is not acting in co-operation with the county council, will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to see that co-operation is established?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. If the hon. Member has any case in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the in creasing proportion of evacuated mothers and young children in Essex and else where who have returned to their homes; if, in view of continued friction and discomfort among many of these mothers and their hosts, he will make inquiries with a view to ascertaining the degree of failure or success of the scheme affecting mothers and young children; and whether he proposes to recognise the partial failure of the scheme for evacuating mothers, and make other arrangements for their protection and assistance?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware that although many mothers and young children have settled down happily with their hosts, a considerable number of them have returned home for one reason or another. The danger of returning to their homes has been repeatedly emphasised, and I have suggested to the local authorities that in order to meet the difficulty in cases where a continuance of billeting arrangements is unreasonable, they should endeavour to provide for the mothers and young children in empty houses. As regards the last part of the question, I should be glad to consider any suggestions the hon. Member may wish to make.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many villages in Essex 75 per cent. of the evacuees have returned and others are going back every week? In these circumstances should not the whole question of evacuated mothers and young children receive serious consideration?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. It is receiving serious consideration. I was only saying to the hon. Member that I should be glad to consider any suggestion he may make to help us in dealing with this difficult problem.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of difficulties arising over the matters of fuel and warmth in houses accommodating evacuated mothers and young children; whether the Government grant to hosts is assumed to cover firing as well as lodging; and whether, in view of the basis


of accommodation, he will consider making a special fuel allowance for or to evacuees during the coming months?

Mr. Elliot: The Government allowances payable to the householder who provides lodging only do not include a payment for fuel. Evacuated mothers and other adults in respect of whom these lodging allowances are payable make their own arrangements for board, and any payment which they may arrange with the householder should include fuel and light.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the cold weather is coming on and that there is distress among the evacuees, and will he give consideration to this question with a view to increasing the allowance to the hostesses or making' some allowance to the evacuees?

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that some of the evacuated women are asking for things that they never could get at home and—[Interruption.] Cannot I finish my supplementary question? [[nterruption.] On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, can I not finish my supplementary question, because it will give a very bad impression if I do not. Many of these mothers—[Interruption.].

Mr. Montague: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We have a large number of questions on the Order Paper, and cannot have so many supplementary questions.

Mr. Montaģue: There has been only one supplementary, except that of the Noble Lady.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that large numbers of parents of evacuee children are withdrawing them as a result of the announcement that they will have to pay for such children; and what steps he is taking to correct the impression responsible for this situation?

Mr. Elliot: I should very much regret that any withdrawal of children should take place as a result of a mistaken impression among the parents of what will be expected of them. It was made clear in the public announcements that no parents will be asked to contribute more than they can afford, and full regard will

be had to other calls on their income. I trust that the hon. Member's question and my answer will assist in correcting any wrong impression.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman makes inquiries from officers in different parts of the country?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. We shall continue to receive reports from our officers on this and other aspects of the evacuation question.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who is going to decide what they can afford?

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether, in order to promote and develop communal feeling, especially among evacuated children, consideration will be given to the desirability of seeking the assistance of an expert on nutrition, such as Sir John Orr?

Mr. Elliot: Both my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Education, who is also closely concerned with the provision of communal meals, and I myself have the benefit of the advice in our Departments of nutritional experts, though we shall, of course, seek from time to time to avail ourselves of information from other authoritative quarters.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Minister of Health whether a local education authority which provides footwear and clothing for children under their care in an evacuation area is subject to surcharge by the Government auditor?

Mr. Elliot: Local education authorities have no power to incur expenditure of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member. Any expenditure by local authorities subject to district audit for which there is no authority in law is subject to disallowance and surcharge by the auditor.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these powers are enjoyed in Scotland and that many local education authorities in this country are strongly of opinion that this is the only way in which the children can be properly clothed and shod during the coming winter months?

Mr. Elliot: I am not unaware of the position in Scotland. The question


whether further steps are necessary in England and Wales is under active consideration.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what grounds he justifies this differentiation between Scotland and this country?

BILLETING ALLOWANCE (SCHOOLTEACHERS).

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a sense of unfairness exists amongst schoolteachers, who have been evacuated with their schools, because no allowance is made to cover the extra cost of food and other expenses involved; and whether he will review the matter?

Mr. Elliot: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 9th instant to a similar question by the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant).

Mr. Ridley: Will the Minister expedite this inquiry having regard to the very severe hardships experienced by a considerable number of people?

GAS MASKS.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in order to lessen the danger of loss or damage, he will rescind the order that gas masks must be carried until a deterioration in the war situation makes it more clearly advisable that they should be carried?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): An official announcement on this matter was made towards the end of last week, but I am glad to have this opportunity of giving it further publicity. So far as concerns persons living or working in evacuation or neutral areas, nothing in the present situation warrants any relaxation of the precaution, to which people are now well accustomed, of carrying their gas masks with them always, except in circumstances which would admit of their getting back in a few minutes to the place where their gas masks are kept. Those who are living in reception areas, however, where the risk is substantially less and the conditions of life and work may easily render gas masks more liable to damage from exposure to the weather, need not, under present conditions, feel

under the same necessity to keep their gas masks always with them.

Mr. Bartlett: Will the Minister bear in mind that in many reception areas or safe areas people are turned away from places of entertainment, and so on, unless they are carrying their gas masks, and does not this give additional inconvenience and worry to people who already have enough worries on their hands?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but I will make an inquiry.

Mr. Charles Williams: Is it necessary for school children in remote places like the West Coast of Scotland and in Cornwall to take gas masks with them everywhere they go?

Sir J. Anderson: I think my answer has made the matter perfectly clear.

Mr. Sorensen: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is clear that there is no order at all that gas masks should be carried and that there is no legal obligation for doing so?

Sir J. Anderson: No order has been given, but it has been strongly advised.

Mr. Macquisten: Is the right hon Gentleman not aware that a remote part of Scotland is the only place where there has been an air attack?

Mr. D. M. Adams: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there is a shortage of both service and civilian respirators for those who are engaged in Civil Defence; and what steps are being taken to remedy this shortage?

Sir J. Anderson: Authorities generally have already received a substantial proportion of their maximum requirements and further supplies are coming forward well.

Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. respectively of the two different gasmasks were deficient up to Monday last, and that the first-aid stations are without the necessary respirators?

Sir J. Anderson: The scale of distribution varies according to the vulnerability of the area, and the figures given are not valid generally.

Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Millwall is considered one of the worst areas in London?

Sir J. Anderson: Millwall is not mentioned in the question, but I will make special inquiries.

AIR RAID SHELTERS.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Home Secretary the total number of private firms in Glasgow who have provided adequate air-raid protection for their employés?

Sir J. Anderson: Reports under Section 14 of the Civil Defence Act have been received in respect of some 800 factory premises and commercial buildings in Glasgow. Pending applications for Government grant from the firms concerned, I am not in a position to say in how many cases the shelters have been completed.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shelters provided by employers in Glasgow are very inadequate indeed, and can he take steps to see that they understand their responsibilities to their employés?

Sir J. Anderson: I am doing everything that is possible in the matter.

Mr. Doland: asked the Home Secretary whether tenants of shop premises that have been designated for public air-raid shelters are compelled to provide the personnel to keep the premises so designated open all night and at week-ends, as well as in business hours, and to defray the wages of such personnel; and in what way can such extra expenses incurred by shopkeepers be recovered?

Sir J. Anderson: Where public shelters are situated in premises which continue to be occupied for their normal uses, it is frequently convenient that the arrangements necessary to secure the admission of the public should be made by the occupier rather than by the local authority; local authorities have been authorised to reimburse reasonable expenditure incurred in this way.

Mr. Doland: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Westminster Council have issued a circular to the effect that they have no authority whatever?

Sir J. Anderson: Authority has been given.

Colonel Nathan: Is there any legislative authority for making it compulsory upon such persons to provide officers?

Sir J. Anderson: So far as I am aware, no.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Home Secretary whether a complete scheme has now been submitted from Glasgow to provide adequate air-raid shelters for the population?

Sir J. Anderson: As a result of discussions between the District Commissioner for Civil Defence in the West of Scotland and the Emergency Committee of the Glasgow Corporation, the committee have agreed to take advantage of the advisory services of regional officers of my Department stationed in Glasgow, and during the past fortnight these officers have been working in close co-operation with the officers of the corporation. Schemes for the provision of air-raid shelter on a large scale have been adopted and I am informed that the local authority is now pressing on with their construction as a matter of the utmost urgency.

Mr. Davidson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation of the long delay on the part of the local authority or the officials in submitting complete plans for precautions?

Sir J. Anderson: It would be very difficult to give an explanation within the limits of an answer to a supplementary question.

Mr. D. M. Adams: asked the Home Secretary the number of both steel and concrete shelters required for South Poplar and the number erected; and will he give separate figures for the Isle of Dogs?

Sir J. Anderson: I have not thought it right to add to the burdens of the local authority by asking them to collect and furnish to me statistical information in respect of particular sections of their area. I have particulars of the general shelter position in the borough as a whole, and shall be glad to communicate those particulars to the hon. Member by letter, if he so desires.

Mr. Loģan: asked the Home Secretary whether he intends to supply Anderson shelters to the county borough of Warrington; when deliveries may be expected; whether he is aware that the local authority have given out to contract the erection of a large number of surface shelters on the basis of 15 per cent. on wages and 20 per cent. profit on materials


and that the erection of these shelters is causing dissatisfaction in the continued absence of Anderson shelters; and will he make inquiries?

Sir J. Anderson: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. Lyons: asked the Home Secretary (1) whether each Civil Defence commissioner has been fully established, and with what staff, and from what date, respectively; the dates from which salaries become payable, and at what present rate both for commissioners and deputies;
(2) whether all Civil Defence commissioners and deputies are now, and since when, employed whole-time in their appointments; and whether any other paid office or appointment has been or will be open to them while carrying out the salaried work of their offices?

Sir J. Anderson: Regional commissioners and deputy commissioners were instructed on 25th August to take up duty at their headquarters and they have since been employed whole-time on this duty. The salaries of commissioners are payable from the date of their appointment by Royal Warrant. All but four of the appointments were made on 31st August: and the other four, which were delayed pending the passing of the Regional Commissioners Act, were made on 2nd September. As regards the rates of salary payable, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Shettles-ton Division (Mr. McGovern) on 26th September. Regional commissioners are not legally debarred from holding any other appointment, but I am satisfied that no commissioner has been appointed who is not in a position to discharge his duties fully. The staffs at Regional Headquarters consist of the regional staffs of the Air-raid Precautions Department, a number of officers seconded from various Government Departments who took up duly as soon as practicable after 25th August, and a limited number of additional staff especially appointed for war duties.

Mr. Lyons: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish or circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of all the persons employed

in regional offices everywhere in the country, showing the salaries they are getting; and, further, does he not think that officers of the nature such as a regional commissioner should cease to be concerned with any other matter of private or commercial employment whatever? Further, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is absolutely impossible—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be debating the question.

Mr. Lyons: May I ask this further question—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Lyons: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

WOMEN'S VOLUNTARY SERVICES.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary under what authority the organisation known as the Women's Voluntary Services for Civil Defence is constituted, and what are its functions; how it is controlled, directed and financed; what is the number of its personnel; and what proportion of them are in receipt of emoluments or allowances for expenses?

Sir J. Anderson: As the answer is necessarily long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this organisation is duplicating the work of organisations which are already in existence and which are doing the work better than the new organisation?

Sir J. Anderson: This organisation has been in existence for more than a year, and from the beginning it has made a special point of co-ordinating the activities of existing organisations.

Following is the answer:

The Women's Voluntary Services for Civil Defence came into being as a result of a request made by my predecessor to a group of representative women to bring the voluntary help of women to the assistance of the local authorities in the formation of their A.R.P. services. Subsequently my right hon. Friend the


Minister of Health enlisted their help in the problems of the hospital and evacuation services. The organisation, which is working in close contact with my Department and has rendered most valuable service over the whole field of Civil Defence, has an Advisory Council composed of representatives of national women's voluntary organisations. The cost of essential services for its headquarters and regional offices, covering a min mum paid staff, premises and stationery, is met from the Exchequer. Local representatives throughout the country are usually provided with office facilities, and in some cases with clerical assistance, by the local authorities concerned.

Including the headquarters and regional staff, the total number of women holding executive or supervisory appointments in the organisation is 3,700, of whom 97 only are paid. There is also a large number of voluntary clerical staff. It will become necessary under war conditions to give, in a limited number of cases, some small monetary assistance to workers in the organisation whose changed financial circumstances no longer permit them to give their services on a wholly voluntary basis, and I have made arrangements to enable the organisation to give such assistance where necessary. When members of the voluntary staff are required to undertake special journeys away from their offices they are entitled to claim travelling allowances on the same terms as civil servants.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. Ammon: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered representations from the Metropolitan Borough of Camberwell regarding the council's liability to bear the cost of wages paid to employes seconded for Civil Defence duties unless temporary employes are engaged in substitution; whether he is aware that the present instructions, such as are contained in Region Circular No. 60, impose heavy liabilities on local authorities; and what does he propose to do to alleviate the heavy expenditure thrown upon the local rates?

Sir J. Anderson: I am giving careful considerat'on to the representations on this subject which I have received from the

Metropolitan Borough of Camberwell. The issue raised forms part of the general question of the financing of Civil Defence expenditure in war time, on which I am already in consultation with representatives of the local authorities.

AUXILIARY FIRE SERVICE.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Home Secretary how many full-time workers have been appointed in the Auxiliary Fire Service in England and Wales?

Sir J. Anderson: The war establishments of the whole-time paid personnel are now under review; and, pending receipt of the returns which are being furnished by fire authorities, it is not possible to give the information for which my hon. Friend asks.

Mr. Lewis: Does that mean that my right hon. Friend has not yet had any returns of the original appointments?

Sir J. Anderson: In many cases these appointments were made on the outbreak of war, and there has not been time, when circumstances have been changing, as my hon. Friend knows, to obtain full and precise information.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Home Secretary whether he will make representations to the proper authorities that, pending the issue of uniforms to those members of the Auxiliary Fire Service who are still without them, they should be provided with oilskins from a store when on duty at fires or in wet weather, since their overalls provided are neither waterproof nor warm?

Sir J. Anderson: Hitherto the purchase of mackintoshes for the use of members of the Auxiliary Fire Service has been restricted to a small number for use by recruits in training, but it has now been decided to authorise the provision of waterproof coats for all Auxiliary Fire Service personnel whose duties are such as to require the provision of such a garment. The cost will rank for grant under the Air-Raid Precautions Act.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS WORKERS.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether the further information he has received relative to municipal officers, councillors, and business men following their usual occupations and drawing additional moneys in respect of


air-raid precautions and other posts is sufficient to warrant action being taken to put a stop to this practice?

Sir J. Anderson: I am obliged to the hon. Member for the particulars which he has been good enough to send me, and I have instituted inquiries in the localities concerned with a view to establishing the facts.

Mr. Davies: Is not the right hon. Gentleman really convinced now that in several parts of the country there are people occupying two, three and four posts at the same time in connection with air-raid precautions and other work, and drawing as many as three and four separate salaries?

Sir J. Anderson: I think it is desirable to make the fullest inquiry into such matters.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Home Secretary the total number of paid air-raid precautions workers in Glasgow; and the total amount expended up to date on airraid precautions salaries and wages?

Sir J. Anderson: The returns which local authorities have been asked to furnish have not all been received, and I am not at present in a position to give in respect of Glasgow the detailed particulars for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. Davidson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to give those very necessary details with regard to that organisation?

Sir J. Anderson: At quite an early date.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (ARMED FORCES DEPENDANTS).

Mr. Windsor: asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to reimburse local authorities for public assistance expenditure incurred because of the inadequacy of the dependants' allowances applying to men now serving with His Majesty's Forces?

Mr. Elliot: Where, owing to exceptional circumstances, the normal rate of allowance to the dependants of men serving with His Majesty's Forces is not sufficient to obviate serious hardship, the Military Service (Special Allowances) Advisory Committee is empowered to recommend the grant of special financial assistance.

Applications for this purpose should be made to the appropriate paying officer of the Service Department concerned. The question of outdoor relief arises only while the grant of such special assistance is under consideration. I have no power to reimburse public assistance authorities expenditure incurred for this purpose.

Mr. Windsor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some local authorities have spent considerable sums of money in order to ease destitution cases through the various Departments not meeting their obligations?

Mr. Elliot: That question would be rather more appropriately addressed to the Departments concerned.

Mr. Holdsworth: Would not the better way of tackling this question be to give these allowances; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every Member has had case after case brought to his attention where application has been made to the authority of whom he speaks, and no satisfaction has been given?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is the Minister aware that when the application is made the type of letter received is, "I am advised by my commanding officer to approach you on this question," which is entirely contrary to the method suggested by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Elliot: I think the hon. Member is speaking of the Military Service Special Allowances Advisory Committee, and, of course, I am unable to answer questions on the subject of such a committee.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will the Minister ask local authorities for opinions and statements of expenditure with regard to this question so that he can consider it?

Mr. Elliot: I have not the power to reimburse authorities for the expenditure incurred.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Health the number of cases of dependants of members of His Majesty's Forces who were in receipt of public assistance committee relief at the week ended 7th October, or the date nearest to that time, "and, in view of the inadequate allowances paid to such dependants, will the Government relieve the local governing bodies of this responsibility by increasing the allowances to dependants to such a scale as will prevent the need for such applications?

Mr. Elliot: With regard to the first part of the question, I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I have given to-day to the hon. Member of Kingston-upon-Hull, Central (Mr. Windsor).

Mr. Dobbie: In view of the fact that it is well known that the allowances for soldiers' dependants are not at all adequate to meet the needs of the people, will the Minister give effect to the last part of the question?

WATER UNDERTAKINGS BILL.

Mr. Windsor: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the present war situation it is his intention to proceed, during the present Session of Parliament, with the Water Undertakings Bill, in view of the great additional burdens that would be placed on local authorities?

Mr. Elliot: It has been decided not to proceed with this Bill this Session.

Mr. Holdsworth: Would the right hon. Gentleman confer with his hon. Friend with regard to the Water Undertakings Bill which deals with the same question and get that Bill on to the Order Paper?

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (NURSES).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that members of the nursing profession employed in voluntary hospitals are alarmed at the steady rise in the cost of articles which they are compelled to purchase out of their small salaries; and whether he will consult with the managers of these institutions with a view to making the necessary adjustments in salaries?

Mr. Elliot: I have no information as to the first part of the question. I have no power to make any adjustments in the salaries of nurses employed in voluntary hospitals.

BLOOD TRANSFUSION.

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Minister of Health whether the blood transfusion organisation for the London and Home Counties district is still taking regular donations of blood from registered blood

donors; and, since military requirements are provided for by a separate organisation which is a special branch of the Royal Army Medical Corps, what is done with this blood given by citizens?

Mr. Elliot: The blood transfusion organisation for London and the Home Counties was set up to ensure a ready supply of blood. As blood can only be stored for a limited time, supplies are being continually taken from blood donors. Arrangements have been made with the Defence Services that the stores of blood will be used to supply Service requirements subject to civilian demands being satisfied, but blood which is taken and not used for its primaiy purpose is being utilised for the preparation of serum, a stock of which is invaluable under war conditions.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether the respective blood transfusion schemes throughout the country are in satisfactory working order and equipped for war emergencies; and whether he will give details as to the actual position?

Mr. Elliot: The chief measure taken for the increase in the supply of blood for transfusion purposes is the setting up of depots on the outskirts of the London region where a store is now always maintained. These depots have been set up by the Medical Research Council and are now fully in operation. They will supply blood to the London region and to some districts outside. In the provinces the existing voluntary arrangements have been augmented.

Mr. Adams: If I supply the Minister with a contrary opinion will he undertake to apologise to the House?

Mr. Elliot: I will undertake to investigate any facts supplied by the hon. Member.

MILK (NEWCASTLE).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that during the last two months both milk supplied under the Milk (Special Designations) Order, 1936, and undesignated milk has shown a serious deterioration when tested for tubercle bacilli by Newcastle Corporation; and whether he will take steps to remedy this deficiency?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. Certain figures have been sent to me by the Corporation of Newcastle-upon-Tyne but were not understood to relate to the presence of tubercle in the milk. I will, however, make further inquiries of the corporation.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that this poisonous stuff has been supplied to the Newcastle Corporation for several months past? When will the matter be remedied?

Mr. Elliot: I have undertaken to make further inquiries with regard to the bacilli, to which I did not understand the previous figures applied.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction aroused by the terms of the Royal Warrant, Cmd. 6105, for the retired pay and pensions of disabled members of the military forces and to the widows, children and dependants of such members deceased in consequence of the present war and of the Royal Air Force order for similar purposes; and whether he will arrange for this House to give consideration to this matter?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I am satisfied that the provision made in the new Royal Warrant for pensions in respect of disablement and death among soldiers and in the corresponding instruments for other classes which include the Mercantile Marine, Fishing Fleet and Civil Defence Volunteers and other civilians covered by the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme is fair, having regard to the present cost of living. The purchasing power of the rates provided will be rather higher in the great majority of cases than that provided by the Royal Warrant of 1919, at the time when it was introduced. Of course, if the cost of living should rise to a material extent during the war, the position could be reconsidered. At the same time the new code is not regarded as necessarily final in all its details, and if the Government find that certain provisions operate unreasonably in any minor respect, they will not hesitate to make any alterations which may prove to be justified. In particular, I have been

impressed by the representations made with regard to the number of children for whom the disablement pensioner receives allowances, and the Minister of Pensions will give early consideration to this provision. With regard to the last part of the question, the question of war pensions will be debated next week.

Mr. Smith: In view of that statement by the Prime Minister, and in view of the fact that he has informed the House that there will be a Debate next Tuesday, I do not intend to pursue this matter at the moment.

Mr. Dinģe Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many of these grievances are directed not only to the scale, but to the machinery, that under the provisions of this Royal Warrant it will be exceedingly difficult where there is the slightest doubt for the claimant to establish his claim, and that there is no provision for appeal under this Royal Warrant? Has the Prime Minister considered those objections to the warrant as it now stands?

The Prime Minister: Those are matters which can be discussed during the Debate.

SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY.

Mr. Horabin: asked the Prime Minister who is now the acting head of the Treasury and the Civil Service, in view of the fact that Sir Horace Wilson has been seconded for services outside that Department?

The Prime Minister: Sir Horace Wilson was seconded to the Treasury in June, 1935, for service with the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury. In April last, he was transferred to the Treasury establishment and, in addition to his service with the Prime Minister, he has recently (in the absence of Sir Warren Fisher, who is Regional Commissioner for the North-Western Region) been acting as Permanent Secretary to the Treasury and Head of His Majesty's Civil Service. His formal appointment as Secretary to the Treasury will take effect on 1st November.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether Sir Horace Wilson is undertaking any duties in connection with the Government's economic activities?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, not now.

Mr. Dalton: Is Sir Horace Wilson still acting as Chief Diplomatic Adviser, to the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: He has never acted as such.

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Prime Minister whether, since each Ministry will in future have its own Press Department, and since censorship and the centralised issue of Government news to the Press and the British Broadcasting Corporation have been transferred to Sir Walter Monckton's organisation, he will state what functions remain to be carried out by the Ministry of Information; and whether he will now abolish this Department with its expensive staff, in the interests of economy?

The Prime Minister: The functions of the Ministry of Information are, firstly, to give the greatest possible publicity, in all parts of the world, to the British point of view in all its aspects. Secondly, to ensure that German misstatements are immediately and convincingly denied and that such denial receives wide currency. To perform these tasks satisfactorily, as was shown by experience in the last war, centralisation and unification of control are essential. The answer to the second part of the question is, therefore, "No, Sir."

Sir A. Knox: In view of the reduced scope of this Ministry's duties, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that those duties could be adequately performed by a staff less expensive and less highbrow in character?

URBAN DISTRICT COUNCILS (INCORPORATION).

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Pay master-General, as representing the Lord President of the Council, the names of the urban district councils which have received, or will shortly receive, charters of incorporation during 1939; and the dates on which these towns have become, or will become, boroughs?

Mr. Munro (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Charters of municipal incorporation have been

granted during the present year to Prestwich, Farnworth and Barry. Except so far as may be necessary for electing the councillors and summoning the first meeting of the councils, the charters come into effect on 9th November next. No petitions for such charters are outstanding.

Mr. Griffiths: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there will be any elections after these charters have been received?

Mr. Munro: I understand that special provision will be made for the boroughs in question, but there is no legislation contemplated for dealing with the question of local elections during the present emergency.

Mr. Tomlinson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the charter in each case was well and truly earned?

Mr. Munro: Certainly.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the temporary suspension of the sittings of the Royal Commission on Workmen's Compensation, he is prepared to bring forward proposals to increase present compensation rates by 50 per cent., and thus give some relief to the large number of families living under great difficulties?

Sir J. Anderson: The course to be followed in this matter is under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Whiteley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the Commission has suspended its operations for the moment, when that Commission was appointed the Prime Minister said that matters of this kind could easily be dealt with; and is he aware that the time has come for some legislation being brought forward at once in view of the difficulties of these people?

Sir J. Anderson: Consultations are taking place, and I can only say that I am not in a position to make any further statement at the moment.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of


these people who should be getting compensation had to apply for public assistance in the very first week?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir.

OUTDOOR PUBLIC MEETINGS.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in certain parts of the country the police authorities are unaware that no ban has been placed on outdoor public meetings held during daylight in an orderly manner, and that such meetings have been banned at Southampton, Letch-worth, Bedford, Colchester, Cambridge, Manchester, and other places; and will he inform the police authorities throughout the country that full freedom of expression, within the law, should be allowed?

Sir J. Anderson: I have made inquiry about each of the places mentioned in the question. As regards Bedford and Letch worth, I have been unable to discover any incident which could be cited in support of the hon. Member's suggestion. At Southampton, I am told that a common on which open-air meetings were frequently held has been taken over for use by the Military. At Colchester objection was taken by the police to a proposed street meeting on 17th September, on the ground that it would cause obstruction. At Manchester I am informed that the police took objection in special circumstances to certain meetings on 17 th September but that other meetings have been held since that date. The police are well aware that there is no general prohibition on outdoor meetings, and I see no occasion to send any further communication to them on this subject.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that on several occasions in these places the police have tried their hand, and have succeeded, in getting the meetings stopped, and will he see that no encouragement is given to action of this kind?

Sir J. Anderson: I should have thought that my very full answer would have made the position perfectly clear.

Mr. Fleminģ: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Manchester the Chief Constable is doing his best to stop defeatist meetings?

FACTORIES ACT (BUTCHERS' SHOPS).

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the existing emergency and the need for limiting responsibilities, he will continue the long-standing arrangement between his factory department and the National Federation of Meat Traders' Association waiving registration of those sausage-making premises in which mechanical-driven machinery is in operaton, provided such machinery is used for a limited period of hours each week?

Sir J. Anderson: Whether any particular butcher's shop is a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act could only be decided by the Courts, but as at present advised I see no reason to alter the existing departmental practice, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, as to the circumstances in which the Act is treated as applying.

SHOPS (HOURS OF CLOSING).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the representations made to him on behalf of shop employes urging the need for earlier closing measures under present conditions, and a limitation of the hours of shop assistants; and whether he has any statement to make as to Government policy on this matter?

Mr. Leslie: asked the Home Secretary whether he has yet come to a decision with respect to the early closing of shops and a limitation of the working hours of assistants?

Sir J. Anderson: After careful consideration of the various interests of shopkeepers, shop assistants and different sections of the general community, I have reached certain conclusions. What I propose is that, as from 30th October, the general closing hours laid down in Section 1 of the Shops (Hours of Closing) Act, 1928, should be advanced to 7.30 p.m. on the late night and 6 p.m. on other evenings, but that where local conditions make some variation desirable for the convenience of the public, local authorities should be empowered to substitute 8 p.m. on the late night and an hour not later than 7 p.m. on one or more


other evenings in any part of their district, for any class of trade or business. An Order in Council to give effect to these proposals will be made as soon as possible. The exemptions contained in the Act of 1928 will not be affected, and the sales of newspapers and of tobacco and smokers' requisites will be allowed to continue up to the present closing hours. The general question of the regulation of working conditions in the distributive trades is a separate matter which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is proposing to consider in consultation with those industrially concerned.

Mr. Leslie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while some shops to-day are closing at 6 o'clock and 6.30 the assistants are kept working until 9 o'clock, and that in the case of women it is very dangerous to travel during the black-out? Will he not consider that matter?

Sir J. Anderson: As I have explained, my responsibility is to fix the hours during which shops may be kept open. The responsibility for the regulation of working conditions rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the fact that the closing of shops earlier has very little to do with the number of hours worked by shop assistants, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough in dealing with the regulations to consult his right hon. Friend, if they are still on friendly terms, so that the hours of labour of all shop assistants shall be reduced?

Sir J. Anderson: I can reassure the hon. Member that I have already consulted my right hon. Friend, who, I believe, is in full agreement with the decision I have announced, and which, at all events, will not make the position of shop assistants any more difficult.

ANTI-WAR ACTIVITIES.

Mr. Horabin: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that under the cover of darkness, the British Union of Fascists are painting on walls in various parts of London the slogan "Stop the War"; that meetings have been held by the same organisation in various quarters of London protesting against the war and

suggesting that anyone who assisted the nation in the prosecution of the war is serving no useful purpose; and, as the large majority of people take offence at speeches of this kind at a time when their relations are serving overseas, especially as such speeches are made on loud-speakers and therefore it is impossible to avoid hearing them, will he take steps to stop these practices which are likely to lead to breaches of the peace?

Briģadier-General Spears: asked the Home Secretary whether he has received reports of the speeches made at "Stop the War" meetings of the British Union of Fascists; and whether, in view of the subversive nature of these, he proposes to take any action?

Sir J. Anderson: The activities of certain small groups of people, not all of the same persuasion, who are seeking to misrepresent the national policy take various forms, including open-air speeches at which loud speakers are occasionally used, the writing of notices on walls, the distribution of leaflets, and so on. I recognise that these activities are strongly resented, but the fact that such deep and widespread offence is caused is some indication of the ineffectiveness of these mispresentations. The activities in question are being carefully watched with a view to appropriate action where the circumstances call for it.

Mr. Montaģu: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that apart from the childish defacement of walls, we are living in England and not in Germany or Russia?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister to state the business for next week?

The Prime Minister: The business will be:

Tuesday—Second Reading of the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

The Opposition will raise questions concerning Family and Dependant Allowances and War Pensions on a Motion for the Adjournment.

Wednesday—Statement on the International situation and debate on Economic Co-ordination.

Thursday—Second Reading of the Prices of Goods Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

The House will not sit on Friday.

It is hoped to pass the Committee and Remaining stages of the Local Elections Bill later in the week.

Mr. Attlee: May I take it that on Wednesday, should the International situation require a long Debate, the Debate on the subject of Economic Coordination would be postponed, because it is of such importance that it would not be right to take it late in the evening?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Thorne: May I take it that the Prime Minister recognises the absolute necessity of passing the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Bill at the earliest opportunity?

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Will it be possible for the Prime Minister to give a day for discussion of the Motion standing in the name of some of my hon. Friends and myself, which recommends the setting up of a Select Committee to examine expenditure on the Defence Services, and a similar Motion in the name of the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall)?

The Prime Minister: I note the request of the right hon. Gentleman, and I suggest that it should be discussed through the usual channels.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday next."—[The Prime Minister.]

BILL PRESENTED.

LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to postpone elections of local authorities, to postpone the preparation of the register of electors, to suspend certain powers relating to the alteration of the areas or of the constitution of local authorities, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, "presented by Sir John Anderson; supported by Mr. Colville, Mr. Elliot, the Attorney-General and Mr.

Peake; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 280.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Finance (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendment to—

Education (Emergency) Bill [Lords,]

Education (Emergency) (Scotland) Bill [Lords,] without Amendment.

THE WAR.

BRITISH REPLY TO GERMAN PROPOSALS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

3.48 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): Last week, in speaking of the announcement about the Russo-German pact, I observed that it contained a suggestion that some peace proposals were likely to be put forward, and I said that, if such proved to be the case, we should examine them in consultation with the Governments of the Dominions and of the French Republic in the light of certain relevant considerations. Since then, the German Chancellor has made his speech, and the consultations I referred to have taken place. I must now state the position of His Majesty's Government. Before, however, I inform the House of the results of our examination of the speech, I must ask hon. Members to recall for a few moments the background against which his proposals appear.
At the end of August His Majesty's Government were actively engaged in correspondence with the German Government on the subject of Poland. It was evident that the situation was dangerous, but we believed that it should be possible to arrive at a peaceful solution if passions were not deliberately stimulated and we felt quite certain that the German Government could, if they desired, influence their friends in Danzig in such a way as to bring about a relaxation of tension and so create conditions favourable to calm and sober negotiation. It will be remembered that in the course of this correspondence the German Chancellor expressed his wish for improved relations between our two countries as soon as the Polish question was settled, to which His Majesty's Government replied that they fully shared the wish, but that everything turned on the nature and method of settlement with Poland. We pointed out that a forcible solution would inevitably involve the fulfilment of our obligations to Poland and we begged the German Chancellor to enter into direct discussions with the Polish Government in which the latter Government had already expressed its willingness to take part.
As everyone knows, these efforts on the part of His Majesty's Government to avoid war and the use of force were in vain. In August last the President of the United States made an appeal to Herr Hitler to settle his differences with Poland by pacific means in order to prevent war breaking out in Europe. At about the same time the King of the Belgians, the Queen of the Netherlands, His Holiness the Pope, and Signor Mussolini all tendered their good offices, but equally in vain. It is evident now that Herr Hitler was determined to make war on Poland, and whatever sincerity there may have been in his wish to come to an understanding with Great Britain it was not strong enough to induce him to postpone an attack upon his neighbour. On 1st September Herr Hitler violated the Polish frontier and invaded Poland, beating down by force of arms and machinery the resistance of the Polish nation and army. As attested by neutral observers, Polish towns and villages were bombed and shelled into ruins; and civilians were slaughtered wholesale, in contravention, at any rate in the later stages, of all the undertakings of which Herr Hitler now speaks with pride as though he had fulfilled them.
It is after this wanton act of aggression which has cost so many Polish and German lives, sacrificed to satisfy his own insistence on the use of force, that the German Chancellor now puts forward his proposals. If there existed any expectation that in these proposals would be included some attempt to make amends for this grievous crime against humanity, following so soon upon the violation of the rights of the Czecho-Slovak nation, it has been doomed to disappointment. The Polish State and its leaders are covered with abuse. What the fate of that part of Poland which Herr Hitler describes as the German sphere of interest is to be does not clearly emerge from his speech, but it is evident that he regards it as a matter for the consideration of Germany alone, to be settled solely in accordance with German interests. The final shaping of this territory and the question of the restoration of a Polish State are, in Herr Hitler's view, problems which cannot be settled by war in the West but exclusively by Russia on the one side and Germany on the other.
We must take it, then, that the proposals which the German Chancellor puts forward for the establishment of what he calls "the certainty of European security" are to be based on recognition of his conquests and of his right to do what he pleases with the conquered.
It would be impossible for Great Britain to accept any such basis without forfeiting her honour and abandoning her claim that international disputes should be settled by discussion and not by force.
The passages in the speech designed to give fresh assurances to Herr Hitler's neighbours I pass over, since they will know what value should be attached to them by reference to the similar assurances he has given in the past.
It would be easy to quote sentences from his speeches in 1935, 1936 and 1938 stating in the most definite terms his determination not to annex Austria or conclude an Anschluss with her, not to fall upon Czecho-Slovakia and not to make any further territorial claims in Europe after the Sudetenland question had been settled in September, 1938. Nor can we pass over Herr Hitler's radical departure from the long professed principles of his policy and creed, as instanced by the inclusion in the German Reich of many millions of Poles and Czechs, despite his repeated professions to the contrary, and by the pact with the Soviet Union concluded after his repeated and violent denunciations of Bolshevism.
This repeated disregard of his word and these sudden reversals of policy bring me to the fundamental difficulty in dealing with the wider proposals in the German Chancellor's speech. The plain truth is that, after our past experience, it is no longer possible to rely upon the unsupported word of the present German Government.

Mr. McGovern: Or Russia's.

The Prime Minister: It is no part of our policy to exclude from her rightful place in Europe a Germany which will live in amity and confidence with other nations. On the contrary, we believe that no effective remedy can be found for the world's ills that does not take account of the just claims and needs of all countries, and whenever the time may come to draw the lines of a new peace settlement,

His Majesty's Government would feel that the future would hold little hope unless such a settlement could be reached through the method of negotiation and agreement.
It was not, therefore, with any vindictive purpose that we embarked on war but simply in defence of freedom. It is not alone the freedom of the small nations that is at stake: there is also in jeopardy the peaceful existence of Great Britain, the Dominions, India, the rest of the British Empire, France, and, indeed, of all freedom-loving nations. Whatever may be the issue of the present struggle, and in whatever way it may be brought to a conclusion, the world will not be the same world that we have known before. Looking to the future we can see that deep changes will inevitably leave their mark on every field of men's thought and action, and if humanity is to guide aright the new forces that will be in operation, all nations will have their part to play.
His Majesty's Government know all too well that in modern war between great Powers victor and vanquished must alike suffer cruel loss. But surrender to wrongdoing would spell the extinction of all hope, and the annihilation of all those values of life which have through centuries been at once the mark and the inspiration of human progress.
We seek no material advantage for ourselves; we desire nothing from the German people which should offend their self-respect. We are not aiming only at victory, but rather looking beyond it to the laying of a foundation of a better international system which will mean that war is not to be the inevitable lot of every succeeding generation.
I am certain that all the peoples of Europe, including the people of Germany, long for peace, a peace which will enable them to live their lives without fear, and to devote their energies and their gifts to the development of their culture, the pursuit of their ideals and the improvement of their material prosperity. The peace which we are determined to secure, however, must be a real and settled peace, not an uneasy truce interrupted by constant alarms and repeated threats. What stands in the way of such a peace? It is the German Government, and the German Government alone, for it is they who by repeated acts of aggression have robbed all Europe of


tranquillity and implanted in the hearts of all their neighbours an ever-present sense of insecurity and fear.
I am glad to think that there is complete agreement between the views of His Majesty's Government and those of the French Government. Hon. Members will have read the speech which was broadcast by M. Daladier last Tuesday. "We have," he said, "taken up arms against aggression; we shall not lay them down until we have sure guarantees of security —a security which cannot be called in question every six months."
Advantage has also been taken of the presence of the Polish Foreign Minister— whom we have been glad to welcome to this country—to consult with the Polish Government, and I am happy to say that we have found entire identity of view to exist between us.
I would sum up the attitude of His Majesty's Government as follows:
Herr Hitler rejected all suggestions for peace until he had overwhelmed Poland, as he had previously overthrown Czechoslovakia. Peace conditions cannot be acceptable which begin by condoning aggression.
The proposals in the German Chancellor's speech are vague and uncertain and contain no suggestion for righting the wrongs done to Czecho-Slovakia and to Poland.
Even if Herr Hitler's proposals were more closely defined and contained suggestions to right these wrongs, it would still be necessary to ask by what practical means the German Government intend to convince the world that aggression will cease and that pledges will be kept. Past experience has shown that no reliance can be placed upon the promises of the present German Government. Accordingly, acts—not words alone— must be forthcoming before we, the British peoples, and France, our gallant and trusted Ally, would be justified in ceasing to wage war to the utmost of our strength. Only when world confidence is restored will it be possible to find—as we would wish to do with the aid of all who show good will—solutions of those questions which disturb the world, which stand in the way of disarmament, retard the restoration of trade and prevent the improvement of the well-being of the peoples.
There is thus a primary condition to be satisfied. Only the German Government can fulfil it. If they will not, there can as yet be no new or better world order of the kind for which all nations yearn.
The issue is, therefore, plain. Either the German Government must give convincing proof of the sincerity of their desire for peace by definite acts and by the provision of effective guarantees of their intention to fulfil their undertakings, or we must persevere in our duty to the end. It is for Germany to make her choice.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I welcome the statement that has just been made by the Prime Minister. It has, I think, put forward with great clarity the essential difficulties of dealing with what have been called the peace proposals of Herr Hitler. The first thing is that they are made by a man whose word is utterly worthless, who offers nothing but vague future promises; the second is that they are made after brutal and unprovoked aggression and are based on the acceptance of the result of that aggression as a fait accompli; and the third is that there is no indication of any change of heart or mind on which hopes for the future could be founded. We are asked to condone a crime and trust the criminal. No British Government, whether from the point of view of principle or from the point of view of prudence, could make any answer of a different kind from that which the Prime Minister has made. I believe that the people of this country will endorse it and that those of other countries will approve of it.
This country went to the extreme limit of forbearance before it took up arms. It has shown abundantly its desire for peace. It has shown its willingness to discuss every grievance. At any time, if Herr Hitler had wished it, he could have discussed problems of frontiers, problems of colonies, problems of raw materials or problems of disarmament. He has chosen instead the path of violence and force, and his professions of good will to various nations have proved to be only the prelude to aggression. It is, therefore, clear that what is required is something more than a suggestion of terms of peace. There must be the conditions existing under which you can have peace. I am sure that everyone in this country is


open to consider any way by which hostilities may be brought to a close, provided that we are going to carry out our honourable undertakings. I think the German people should know that at any time they can get peace, but they must abandon the method of violence and aggression. The German people must realise that they have rulers who have forfeited every title to be trusted. Abandonment of aggression is not a term of a peace settlement; it is an indispensable condition.
We of the Labour party have taken up a definite stand against wanton aggression and for the rule of law. We are convinced that there is no prospect of enduring peace until we get rid of violence. The attitude of our party was, I think, stated most admirably by my colleague the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) on, another occasion, and I could not hope to find better words than his. We are resolved to carry on this struggle until we have secured the necessary conditions for a peaceful world, and in doing this we are acting in complete harmony with the policy of our party, affirmed and reaffirmed at conference after conference. It is impossible for anyone at the present time to discuss usefully the detailed terms of a European settlement, but we can and should affirm principles, and the first principle is that we cannot any longer endure a world that is subject at all times to violence, a world in which there is no rule of law. We can, I think, lay down the principles on which we think an enduring peace can be made. For our part, we laid down those principles long ago, and we see no reason to alter the principles of Labour's peace policy. We must get a new world, we must get a Europe in which the rights of all nations are recognised.
I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say, in his speech, that in arriving at any peace, we should do it in consultation with the German people—we should be considering the future of the German people. We are not standing for a Carthaginian peace, but we are standing for a Europe in which, while the German people will have their rights, all other nations will have their rights as well. There is a great deal of propaganda about Germany having room to live. The Poles must have room to live, the Czechs must have room to live. All the small nations as well as the great nations have their

contribution to make, and the size of a nation or of its territory bears no indication of the contribution that it has made to mankind—witness Palestine and Greece. If we are standing for that, we are standing against domination, we are standing against Imperialism, and we must also stand for the only conditions under which it is possible that those smaller nations could exist, and that is a system of collective security in which they do not have to rely only on their own strength. If we want to build up a new Europe, it must be a more closely coordinated Europe.
We stand for disarmament. Herr Hitler talks of disarmament, but you must have disarmament of the mind first of all, and you must have security if you are going to get disarmament. Mr. Arthur Henderson, who did so much in the formation of our foreign policy, laid it down, and the three years' struggle at the Disarmament Conference confirms irrefutably the experience of succeeding years, and that is that no disarmament is possible except in exchange for really effective measures for collective defence. Those are the principles that we would lay down. We hear talk of Colonies. We do not believe in the carving-up of Colonies or in the exploitation of Colonies by any Power. We believe in Colonies being for the people who live there, and in the use of all the resources of the world in the interests of all the peoples of the world. We believe that we can build up a new world, but it must be a new world based on principles, and those are the principles of democracy, that regard the rights of others as well as our own rights.
I think that we should let the German people know that this choice is before them. The choice before them is not of being defeated in war and disappearing as effective members of the European comity of nations. They have the choice of stopping this war, they have the choice of contributing to a great Europe, and they know that this country is standing simply for the conditions of peace. But until we get these, until we get people on whose word we can rely, we must with resolution pursue this struggle, because no patched-up peace which is only going to lead to another war, no patched-up peace which will leave only an uneasy world staggering under a huge burden of armaments, will content us. We are


in this struggle. We must see that we come out of this struggle with nothing less than a new world.

4.17 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Like the Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friends and I welcome the Prime Minister's statement. I came here to-day prepared to subject Herr Hitler's speech to a somewhat detailed analysis, but it has been so fully and fairly criticised by the Prime Minister that, for my part, I do not want to detain the House by travelling over the same ground. My hon. Friends and I agree with the response which the Prime Minister has given this afternoon to Herr Hitler's speech.
The Prime Minister said—and I thought it was a pregnant truth—that the world, at the end of this struggle, will not be the same world that we have known before. We cannot now go back to Europe as it was. A new dispensation is inevitable. It may be based on force and tyranny, and let us face the fact that all the indications in Europe at the present time are that it will be based on force and tyranny, but it will not be so based unless the democracies allow their will to be paralysed by fear and irresolution. If we stand firm, we can now win the opportunity, of which we must steel ourselves by prayer and thought to be worthy, of laying the foundations of Europe on a basis of freedom and consent. Once more, wherever wrong has been done in recent years, the name of Britain is being heard with hope and fear. Let us resolve not to weaken or falter in our task, but to ensure that those hopes, which are so deeply cherished, of Britain's action will be fulfilled.
One of the difficulties with which some people have come to me about our present position I would like to tell the House quite frankly. They say to me, "One of our war aims is the destruction of Hitlerism; another is to assert the right of nations to choose their own form of government. Are those two aims consistent? If the Germans want Hitlerism, have we the right or the power to demand its destruction?" Surely the answer is this, that we recognise the right of a nation to govern itself in its own way. even to choose a dictatorship if it wants it. We may be horrified by the results. We may see the loathsome spectres of

racial and religious persecution rearing their ugly heads. We may witness the horrors of secret police oppression and of concentration camps. We have the right and the duty to condemn these manifestations of barbarism, but it is not for us to chastise another people for its own misgovernment or to go to war on behalf of Pastor Niemuller or the German Jews. The German people must find means of setting their own house in order and we must recognise their rights of self-government in their own country. But when they seek to impose their tyranny on their neighbours, the peace and freedom of every other nation, including our own, are threatened. To shrink from any sacrifice to stop the spread of Nazi tyranny would be to betray not only our country, but our democratic ideals and our hopes of establishing peace in the world.
Accordingly, if the idea of conquest is inherent in Herr Hitler's policy and system, as I have frequently contended in this House, citing "Mein Kampf" in support of my case, it follows that Hitlerism must be destroyed. There is only one man who can prove the contrary, and that man is Herr Hitler himself. Let him march his troops out of all the countries which he has acquired by violence during the last two years. Let him agree that the freedom of Poland and Czecho-Slovakia shall be restored at once and that the people of Austria shall be allowed to decide their own destiny by plebiscite with full guarantees for the free expression of the Austrian people's will. Then, and then only, will it be possible for us to contemplate negotiating peace with Herr Hitler. If His Majesty's Government agree with that, I would urge them to proclaim by every means in their power to the German people and to the world at large that if this war goes on it is not because we have any territorial claims upon them— we have none; nor because we wish them ill—we wish them freedom and prosperity; nor because we want to dictate peace to them, because, as the Prime Minister has said, we want them to join with us in rebuilding Europe on a foundation of justice and good faith; but merely because conquest and tyranny over other nations is implicit in Hitlerism and because Herr Hitler insists on maintaining his conquest of Poland and Czecho-Slovakia and on imposing his yoke on Czechs and Poles.
At this stage, or at any rate at a very early stage, I hope His Majesty's Government may go a little further than they have gone to-day in the definition of the aims of British policy. I whole-heartedly agree with what the Leader of the Opposition said and that we must not press the Government to go too far into details. There would be danger there. I hope, however, that the Government will, as opportunities continue for discussion with our French friends and the Dominions, gradually find it possible to add a little more definition to those aims of policy which the Prime Minister announced today and which I support. In the course of our Debates on Foreign affairs during the last two years I regret that I have not often found it possible to agree with the Prime Minister, but we have frequently agreed on one thing, that is, in deprecating the use of question-begging phrases— or perhaps I should say the question-begging use of phrases, such as "collective security," on the one hand, and "appeasement" on the other. Now there is a new word which a great many people are uttering, very often meaning different things by it, but by which men vaguely think that they mean the same thing as their neighbours. That word is "federation." Yet surely it is clear that in the modern shrunken world we shall never be able either to avert war or to make the best use of the resources of the world in the interests of its people and for the enrichment of our civilisation unless we are willing, both in the political and in the economic sphere, to consent to a substantial limitation upon national sovereignty. We must not ignore the difficulties. We must realise that if the British Empire refuses to accept federation there will be great difficulty in persuading the much more diverse peoples of Europe to do so. We must study the obstacles with which the authors of the Covenant of the League and M. Briand at a later stage were confronted, but we must not be deterred by those difficulties.
So I hope that His Majesty's Government may soon find themselves in a position to proclaim—I think this afternoon it is true to say that His Majesty's Government have proclaimed—that their war aims are not merely negative, but that they are fighting for the liberation of Europe from Nazi tyranny; and—I would

like them to add—from the burden and danger of national armaments; for the rebuilding of a European order based upon law, justice and good faith, and equipped with organs of consultation and, within limits which could only be prescribed by an international conference, of government and supervision; and with courts of law and equity with adequate force at their disposal to assert their authority.
The Archbishop of York spoke words of inspiration to the country in his broadcast a week ago. Speaking of the attempt in Germany to make the Nazi ideology into a religion and to exalt Herr Hitler as a god, he said this:
Against the deified nation of the Nazis our people have taken their stand as a dedicated nation
dedicafed, as he explained, to the pursuit of the ideals of freedom and justice, justice to Czechs, justice to Poles and justice to Germans, too; and to the pursuit of peace and the common weal of mankind. That was surely a noble lead for a great ecclesiastic to give. Those are the words with which the hungry sheep of this country are waiting to be fed, but they want them in the form of pledges of action from their responsible political leaders.
It was a good statement that the Prime Minister made to-day, and again I say I hope that it will be repeated and repeated by every political leader, not only in this House, but from public platforms and with increasing definition. If we have to wander in the wilderness for a season, let our leaders proclaim their vision of the promised land. I am not asking them to give us smooth phrases like "A war to end war," or to suggest that in the mere mumbling of comfortable words like "federation" we shall find salvation. Let them tell us that there are savage tribes and walled cities in the promised land, and all kinds of intractable problems to be solved. But let them assure us that we are not merely moving through the wilderness in a circle, hoping to return in safety, but after terrible losses in blood and treasure, to the old imperialist world of bitter national feuds and jealousies; but that they His Majesty's Government, in cooperation with the French Government, are planning to offer Europe a new dispensation, in the shaping of which


neutral nations, and Germany herself, may have their share, a dispensation which will give freedom and justice to all nations and will safeguard the great traditions and the moral values of our civilisation.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: I wish, first of all, to say that, like everyone in this House I and the friends with whom I am usually associated view with as much horror as does everybody else the aggression, the persecution and the slaughter which have taken place in Poland; but while we may express our sympathy with the Polish people there are those of us who cannot accept the doctrine that by more slaughter the wrong which has been done will be rectified. It is impossible for me to understand how it is that hon. and right hon. Members who take part in these Debates do not appear to have learned anything from the past. I heard the other night the broadcast by the Secretary of State for the Dominions, at the close of which he said that he and others had fought in the last war to wipe out militarism and to make Europe a safe place to live in. I thought the right hon. Gentleman's statement was a good, straightforward, clear-cut statement of the views, especially, of the young men who fought in the last war. He said that their hopes had been blighted—I am not using his exact words—and went on to say: "This time we must see that we accomplish our aim." No hon. or right hon. Member can stand up in this House and say with truth that he can give the young manhood of to-day the guarantee that after the slaughter of another 10,000,000, with other millions maimed and bruised, the future of Europe will be built on the foundations described by the Prime Minister in a passage which was one of the best which I have heard him deliver, picturing a new world and a new condition of things negotiated with those with whom Britain and France have been fighting and with the rest of Europe. If I could believe for a moment that out of this holocaust of slaughter that sort of thing could come, I should never attempt to speak against the proposition of carrying this war to what is regarded as the bitter end.
I do not begin to think that any of those who take the view which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for

the Dominions take enjoy saying what they say and asking the young men to carry on in this struggle. What I really cannot understand is their mentality. I do not understand how men who are infinitely better educated than I am can dare to stand up at this period in the history of the world and say that out of this universal slaughter, out of the hatred that will be engendered, out of all the horrors which will take place, some good, new edifice of peace and security can be erected. It is because I think that, that I am also here to say something else. I have not been able for domestic reasons— nothing to do with myself—to attend any of the meetings which have been spoken about to-day, but I have travelled about England a very great deal during the last month and I have met people at first hand under all sorts of conditions, at small meetings and in little groups, and I want to tell the House what is bewildering them.
Although I am sure—and I do not want to belittle this in any way—that the overwhelming mass of the people in the country will stand by the Government whatever happens, what they are asking is this. "If we are going to fight aggression, where is this fighting to stop? Are you going to stop the years' old aggression of Japan in China? Are you going to restore Albania?" I should also like the Prime Minister to consider this: he may not be able to answer it to-day, but perhaps he can answer it when he makes his statement next week. What I am continually asked, and what I will undertake to say other hon. and right hon. Members have been asked, is, "What is the Government's attitude towards the Russian invasion of Poland?" We have heard very little about it to-day. Also, what is their attitude towards the Lithuanian Government taking over Vilna? Is it proposed that the war is to be carried on until the Russians are driven back to the old frontier and the Lithuanians are driven once more out of Vilna? It is not fair to the Polish people or the Polish Government to say, "We are going to have a restored Polish Government." What the people in this country are asking, and what the Polish people are entitled to know, is whether, when the British Government say, "We are going to restore Poland," it means a restoration of Poland as it was before the


war started. We have not heard a word about that.
The next thing is that the coming of Russia into this business and her action in the Baltic has changed the situation in the minds of many people. They do not understand what the end of it is going to be—not even the beginning of it. I do not want to do more this afternoon than to call attention to these facts. I would not be worthy of being a Member of this House if I did not bring them to the notice of the Government. You can hear men speak on trams, in trains, in the streets, and in buses, and this question is continually being asked: "What do we mean when we say that we shall fight on for the restoration of Poland?" That question ought to be answered.
I want to make one other statement. I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he does not claim that France and Britain alone must settle what the terms of peace are to be, whether they carry this thing to an end or it is ended before. The smaller countries of the world, especially in Europe, have as big an interest in this business as have any of the larger countries. I went round Europe just before this horrible condition of things broke out. It is all very well to say that these small countries will lean upon us and will look to us, but they have suffered, and through no fault of their own. When they have been asked the question whether they would engage in war or not they have always said, to me at any rate: "How can we answer, in the face of the great Powers when they start to move?" Just now, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Baltic States are living in a condition of tension. I would like to do publicly what I did privately, appeal to President Roosevelt and to the King of the Belgians to make one more effort, one more supreme effort at this moment, to bring the nations together. If the belligerents will not come, I wish the neutrals would come together. As our Government look at present upon Russia as a neutral, Russia could attend that conference. Let them hammer out proposals for dealing with the situation as it is now. I believe that they have the best right to do this.
I believe, further, that you cannot overlook the fact that Lord Halifax in another place and the Prime Minister today at that Box spoke of the new world

into which we shall emerge. I have said in this House, and I repeat this afternoon, that we are living in a new world now. For years this world of men and women has been advancing, and there has been progress in regard to economic conditions and in the power that man possesses over Nature. There has been this terrible dilemma, that we can produce abundantly everything we need, without being able to distribute it. The Russian Soviet Government have been trying their terrific experiments during these 20 years. They have nothing for which to thank any of us in their working out of those experiments, and whether we like it or not, they stand for a new economic and financial order. I believe we and the world will be making a tremendous mistake unless some effort is made to break down the idea that our country at this juncture, for some reason which they do not understand, should carry on this war. I feel more strongly than I can say that any and every opportunity should be taken to end the war. I hope that the neutrals will take some action if our own Government do not do so.
I have listened to the two statements made this week by the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air. I heard the First Lord of the Admiralty over the wireless. I know now the tremendous effort that our country has made. I wonder whether the day will ever come when a similar effort will be made to sweep away the bad economic, conditions and the poverty and destitution in our own country, and whether there will ever be a day when Ministers will stand at that Box and say: "Now we are building a new England, a new Britain and a new world." I heard the Minister, at the end of his eloquent statement last night, give a picture of the soldiers in France, and I heard him say something like this, that the men were singing the old songs and making the old jokes. Thank God they have the courage to do that, under these conditions.
I have another vision; I have spoken of it in this House many a time when fighting about soldiers' pensions and other things. I have a picture that will never die out of my memory—it will not, perhaps, be long for it to have that opportunity. It is of the young men who


marched round Bow and Bromley in 1914. Most of those boys I had known as babies. The majority of them never came back. Many of those who did come back were bruised and battered and we had to fight like mad to get them any sort of conditions at all. The records of this House will prove that. I have told the House this many times; I will tell the House something else now. I have now seen the sons of those men, whom also I have known as babies, march and re-march, singing the old songs and going again to those shambles. If I could be convinced that out of war and slaughter, and out of all this bestial business, a true peace would come, I would go out and cheer them and beg them to go and join; and if I had the strength, I would go and join with them. But I know from the bottom of my soul, because I am convinced by experience, by what I have read and by experience in my own lifetime, that you cannot overcome evil by evil and you cannot cast out force by force.
Because I know those things, I am bound this afternoon to say that I regret that we cannot go one step further and say to the Russian, the American and all the Governments: "Let us come together and try to hammer out some way of peace." You may tell me a thousand times that Hitler is this, that or the other, and you may tell me that no one's words are to be trusted; but when you speak of democracy, just remember India. I am sorry that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not here. When we fought for the miserable Measure that is at present operating in India, he led 70 or 80 Members against that tiny bit of democracy for India. To-day, if we want to show the world that we really believe in democracy, it is our business to apply our principles where we are capable of doing so.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: The whole House always appreciates the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), but I should like him to consider what sort of world it would be if we were led to seek terms with Hitler and Russia, at practically any cost, because of the suffering that war would bring. It would mean that every promise that has been made, not

only from this Front Bench but from the leaders of the Opposition—the pledges to destroy aggression, the pledges to destroy the Nazi system, the pledges that Poland should be assisted if she suffered invasion—all would be broken. Great Britain might for a time keep some of the prosperity that she had, but Great Britain would stand before the world as a country prepared to say one thing in bluff but ready to run away when her bluff was called. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman himself, after such a dishonourable peace, would find that he was very proud of the peace that we had gained by negotiation at any cost.
I think that practically every section of the House has welcomed what has been said by the Prime Minister, but I think we are inclined to talk rather too much about peace and rather too little about victory. Peace must succeed victory, but if one thing is almost certain it is that, until either the German Army has been beaten in the field or the German home front has been broken behind the German Army, it is profitless to talk of a real peace, and a peace that will endure. Can you expect that Hitler fresh from his victories in Poland, freshly inspired by a few people, who do not represent general feeling, in this country and elsewhere, talking about negotiations, will offer us terms which we can accept? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), in a speech with every word of which, if I may say so, I agree, laid down clearly the sort of things that would have to be done before we considered taking the word of the German Government. The present German Government would have to resign. There would have to be some reparation for the wanton sufferings and misery inflicted on the Polish people.

Mr. Gallacher: Reparations again.

Mr. Raikes: The hon. Member says, "Reparations again," but, for my part, I should expect to see some gesture made by the Germans in the way of restoring the towns that have been wantonly destroyed. There is one other side of the problem about which I should like to say a word; that is, with regard to South Eastern Europe. There appears at this moment to be a possibility that a Balkan Front may become, for the first time, a real possibility. You have these little States, that have been frightened to death


by the Soviet-German agreement, that have seen the small States further North being swallowed up, showing signs of coming together in a common front. I hope that, if the common front is formed, the Government and all sections in the House will remember that those countries are probably more afraid of the Soviet than of Germany.

Sir Richard Acland: Question.

Mr. Raikes: Their governments certainly are; and you have, in a realistic world, to deal with the governments which are in office at a particular time. [Interruption.] We have, at any rate, given a pledge that there is one leader we propose to see destroyed. It is not our business to say that we are not prepared to give any sort of support to a particular Balkan State because it has not the sort of government that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) wants.

Mr. A. Edwards: Does the hon. Member say that it is part of this Government's policy to destroy Hitler?

Mr. Raikes: I understood that at the very start of this war the Government laid it down that Nazism must be defeated. It seems to me that it would be an abuse of terms to suggest that Nazism must be defeated and that Hitler might remain. I do not think we need quibble with words; it is pretty plain. In the Balkans you have a certain fear of Russia. We have speeches made, primarily for home consumption—I am thinking, of course, particularly of that made by the First Lord of the Admiralty—in which some distinction is drawn between Germany and Russia. It is pointed out, with some truth, that if Russia expands to the West it may make Germany's position more difficult, and, therefore, may be of some assistance to Britain and France.

Mr. McGovern: You agree with that?

Mr. Raikes: I say that there are certain arguments which can be adduced to show that that would be of some disadvantage to Germany. But it would not be difficult to impress the small countries in the Balkans with the view that, after all, we are not awfully particular whether they are Bolshevik, if they are not Nazi. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but if you express the view that the advance of Russia to the West would not be a bad thing, it is not difficult from

that to spread the impression that if Russia goes a bit more to the South-West and grabs certain countries, there is something to be said for it. That is not a view that will appeal to the Balkan Entente. We see Baltic States swallowed up by Russia. Hitler is going to use that as a lever. He will say, "Look here, boys; you have seen what is happening. If you are prepared to give us all the things we require, without pressing too soon for payment, we will see that Russia does not come on you; but if not, would you sooner have a little Nazi protection? Look at the Sudetenland. Then look at East Poland." That sort of propaganda we shall have to counter by showing any country in Europe that is prepared to resist that we are prepared to support it.
Be that as it may, I should like to say this to the Government. I think this is going to be a long war, and our task is to make up our minds that victory is the main aim, and that our people have to be boldly told the facts. Peace talks will be considered at any time, but it is not likely that there will be peace before victory, and we have to face the pretty hard and difficult task before us. We face it in the knowledge of two things. We face it in the knowledge that by taking on this show over Poland—perhaps not an issue which some of us would have chosen—we have not taken it on from selfish motives. We have taken it on because we believe the time has come when aggression has to be checked, and when paganism and evil, and all that spirit which has dominated Germany, and not only Germany alone, have to be removed. We have seen the example of those men and women in Warsaw who were prepared not only to resist to the very last, but to die rather than submit to injustice, to the loss of their independence and the threats they were under. Looking at these things, I hope and believe that we shall go forward this winter, next year, and, if necessary, the year after, in the determination that we shall never be defeated in our purpose until aggression has ceased and liberty has been restored.

5.2 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: Although I was very delighted when the Prime Minister showed by his speech the beginnings of a realisation that civilisation as we know it has already undergone a profound change,


I certainly preferred the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, who condescended to some precise considerations as regards the new circumstances in which we find ourselves and the new problems which we shall have to solve sooner or later. I believe that to-day we are faced not with an easy situation, but with a profoundly difficult problem, and I do not wish to go back and review the past, because that would be a waste of time. The question as I see it is not whether we should accept the proposals that have been put forward by Hitler, but as to whether we ought to seize the opportunity that is thus provided to make a perfectly clear declaration of our own war aims and make an offer to the world to confer upon the basis of those proposals. What is the alternative? The alternative is to proceed with a war that will mean the destruction of all the values of civilisation. It will mean the most terrible slaughter, both among soldiers and civilians, and if in reality there is any honourable path which we can now take which will by one jot or tittle diminish the likelihood of that catastrophe, then, I feel convinced that every responsible Member in this House would be only too anxious to accept that alternative.
The most fundamental difficulty that faces us to-day, as the Prime Minister indicated, is the disastrous fact that the wishes of the common people of, I believe, all lands for peace and liberty are not reflected in their Governments. Indeed, no Government of any nation that matters in the present situation is prepared to trust the Government of any other nation; and do not let us think that that is merely a question of people not being prepared to trust Hitler, nor indeed can one blame Governments for that lack of trust in the light of the experience of the last few years. We are now, and have for a long time been, living in the atmosphere of power politics, in which, as was once said in this House by Lord Baldwin, any country will in the last resort do anything to advantage its own position no matter what pledges it has given or what undertakings it breaks. It is not, therefore, surprising that in such an atmosphere offers of any kind are not looked upon as realities, but rather as moves in the game of international politics. That atmosphere is the result

of the breakdown in the attempt to bring law and order into the world; an attempt which was made after the last war by the setting up of the League of Nations. That effort was made of no avail when Japan was allowed to invade Manchuria, as some of us pointed out at that time amid the cries of "war-mongers" from the benches opposite. The whole subsequent history of aggression has, for the time being at least, sealed the doom of international morality. And yet, at some time, and somehow, a fresh attempt will have to be made to re-establish, or, perhaps it would be better to say, to establish, a form of stable world order, otherwise we are fated to a perpetual state of intensive armament accompanied by inevitably recurring war which must destroy every decent value in our civilisation and bring complete financial ruin to every great nation in the world.
The question is: Are we to make such an attempt now when there may be a chance, or are we to wait to do the same thing after three or more years of the most horrible and tragic war? That is the way in which the present problem presents itself to me, and, I believe, to thousands more of every class and party throughout the country. However great our pride and our belief in our own honesty of purpose may be, we must, I am convinced, bear in mind the fact that what we determine to-day may be decisive in the lives of millions of people in almost every country of the world.

Mr. Thurtle: And their liberty, too.

Sir S. Cripps: And their liberty, too. We carry, indeed, a very heavy responsibility, and one which I am sure we shall be prepared to face. We on this side of the House have certainly been consistently opposed to the regime of Hitler in Germany. It would, indeed, have been to the great benefit of our country and of the world as a whole if that antagonism had been shared by the Government during the last five years. I am as unwilling as any hon. Member in this House to place any reliance upon the promises of Hitler, or of any similar government anywhere in the world. But that unwillingness cannot discharge us from the duty to make clear to the world, and to our own people, what exactly it is for which are are asking them to suffer if we are determined to carry on the war.


The offer that has been made by the German rulers is, obviously, one that we could not for a moment accept, and yet it would, in my view, be the height of unjustifiable folly merely to turn it down without putting forward in clear and precise terms our own objective.
By our statement now of that purpose we shall largely decide the course of the war, if it continues, and we shall disclose to the rest of the world the reality or the unreality of our professions in the cause of democracy and freedom. But it is not only the rest of the world that matters in this relation. The spirit of our own people is of the most vital importance, if this war is to be prosecuted. To-day, there are in this country a large and growing number of people who are feeling that, whatever comes out of this war, it is absolutely impossible that we should go back again to the conditions that existed before the war. As the Prime Minister has already stated in his speech to-day, there is a realisation that some new order must come out of the war, and those people are determined, so far as they can achieve their purpose, that that newer and better type of national and international organisation shall emerge for the benefit of the common people of the world. That is their only real interest and desire, and unless they can clearly see some hope of accomplishing such a purpose, they will have no enthusiasm for prosecuting a war which they will regard as a hopeless and senseless struggle.
Such people form no unimportant or insignificant part of the population of this country. They will not and they cannot be satisfied with the sort of war aims that have so far been expressed by the Government, even by the Prime Minister this afternoon. Excellently vague in their definition, those aims, in my view, when examined, amount to nothing more than a determination to try and revert to the status quo before the war, and a determination on the part of this country and of France to preserve untouched as far as possible their domination over world affairs. With such aims, I believe, neither the people of this country nor the people of neutral countries will be satisfied. However much those aims may be dressed up in phraseology about democracy and freedom, they will fail to inspire the people to that effort which is

essential if we are to be victorious. If we are in truth and in fact fighting for democracy and freedom and a new world, then there are certain concrete expressions of that general purpose which can quite clearly be stated, and which will give life and reality to the otherwise vague and nebulous content of those expressions. Any definitive world settlement must envisage democracy and freedom, if that is our true aim, not only in territories that have been conquered by the Germans, but throughout the world. Our care for India must be as great as it is for Poland. Our readiness to re-establish the map of Europe must be equalled by our readiness to reconsider the whole question of the Imperial conquests of the past. We cannot, without laying ourselves open to the charge of cynicism, select the territories of others for the benefits of democracy and freedom while withholding those benefits from territories from which we derive economic advantage. To go forward with a war upon such a basis would, in my view, be to invite disaster.
This is only one aspect of the problem in which our own people are vitally concerned. They are concerned also with what will come for them out of this war besides the slaughter, the tragedy and the suffering. Nor do they think of this matter merely in terms of their economic position after the war, though the lessons which many of them have learned during the last post-war period have sunk deep enough into their consciousness to make them determined to allow no repetition of those conditions if they can possibly avoid it. I am convinced that to-day the people want to envisage some form of civilisation which is going to establish finer and better values of freedom and democracy than we have ever so far known. Politics, both national and international, seem during the last years, unfortunately, to have lost any content that they may have once had of philosophy or of religion in its widest sense. Attempts are made to stir the emotions and the religious feelings of the people at times like these; but those attempts are merely in order to reinforce the fighting machine and really have no effect as to the ultimate objectives of the fighting. It is essential that we should declare a policy now for our country, both in domestic and in international affairs, that has behind it something much more profound and real than


mere bread and butter politics or power politics. Such a policy would bring to the people true inspiration and courage and given a clear, objective, based upon such a foundation, then, whether it fails or not, in its objective in stopping the war, there will be no doubt as to their willingness to undergo any trial in order to achieve that end.
In the Government's statement of war aims there is, I fear, no indication of such vision. Indeed, they have all the appearance of being based upon the most materialistic foundation of power politics, and a reversion to the altogether uninspiring, tragic and domestic circumstances which prevailed in this country before the war. The whole approach of the Government to the problems of the working class is still one of patronage and not of justice. The condition of such persons as the old age pensioners and the unemployed, and the treatment that they are now receiving, while at the same time the interests of big businesses are being safe-guardeds and a great mass of money is being thrown away as a result, does not indicate that the Government have any new ideas, or that they are regarding the future in any other light than they have regarded the past. It is possible for a perfectly clear declaration to be made as regards these matters and to be incorporated in the war aims of the Government. If the people of this country are to be convinced that they are fighting for a new and better civilisation they, too, will expect to see and to hear concrete proposals of a character that indicate that change of mind and spirit in the Government.
It is not possible now to elaborate the kind of war aims that I should like to see advanced as far as the international situation is concerned, but I do wish to emphasise with all my power the urgent need for the Government to put out the best war aims of which they are capable, and on the most far-reaching and imaginative scale, at the earliest possible moment. I am certain that unless this is done, and done promptly, a deep division will grow up in the nation at the very time when unity is most essential. If this war is to be fought it is not going to be an easy matter even if our enemies are confined to Germany alone, and it would be the gravest folly to neglect any

single factor that would help us towards our success. As I have already said, the major difficulty that confronts us is the fact that no single government of those immediately concerned is prepared to trust another. That state of affairs is not likely to be improved as the result of a long and bitter war. Some time we shall have to seek to re-establish a form of order based upon the best guarantees that are available. Why should we not now state publicly what those guarantees are to be, and put them forward as our contribution to saving the world, if possible, from war? If they are not accepted by others then, in the eyes of our own people and of the world, we shall at least have done our utmost in that direction. The fact that we do not expect them to be accepted does not, in my view, relieve us from the onus of making perfectly clear what they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] I will deal with them in a moment, if hon. Members will be patient.
In the present state of the world it is no good continuing a war merely because you do not trust your opponents. I believe there is one lesson that stands out more clearly than any other from the Treaty of Versailles, and that is that you cannot destroy absolutely a virile nation, and that if you try to do so you merely raise up greater dangers to yourself in the long run. Many of us tried to point that out at the end of the last war but, unfortunately, it fell upon deaf ears. When we are attempting to arrive at peace terms I imagine that no one will consider reimposing terms such as were imposed at Versailles. We shall have to accept some form of guarantee for the carrying out of the terms of peace, just as we tried to formulate a guarantee by setting up the League of Nations after the last war, and, with all its accumulated experience of the working or failure to work of the League of Nations, surely this Government can now give some expression of what it believes and hopes will be the guarantees that will then be available.
There are, indeed, only two forms of guarantee that are possible. The first is the alignment of strong or overwhelming forces on the side of the person seeking the guarantee; the other, the setting up of some form of federation or league, or whatever you like to call it, in which the individual States resign some measure


of their national sovereignty for the sake of peace and for the benefit of the whole society of nations. A mere voluntary organisation such as the League of Nations, though a step in the right direction, has proved itself in the hands of those who tried to operate it since the last war to be of no avail. The experiences of Abyssinia, China, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Spain and Poland are not likely to encourage other nations to place reliance on that sort of organisation, so that there must be something better and more concrete than the League of Nations provided after the last war. If we are to rely on such a guarantee it is surely time that we specified the type that we desire. If, on the other hand, we are going to rely upon a guarantee of an armed peace alliance in Europe, then it is surely better that we should make up our minds soon of whom that peace alliance shall consist, as otherwise we may find them on the other side. Then we shall be driven after the next peace to preparing, as we have been during the last 20 years, for the next war of revenge as a result of that peace. When I say preparing, I speak of Europe. Europe has been preparing since the Treaty of Versailles for the war of revenge upon which to-day it is engaged. It is these and other considerations that make it essential, in my view, that we should have this more detailed expression of our war aims. Such a declaration might or might not form the basis for a world conference at this stage. If it did, then, in my view, so much the better, for such a conference would not be based upon Hitler's proposals, which would then be recognised for the impracticable thing that they are, but upon the far more concrete and practical suggestions that we should have made not to Germany but to the whole world. I fully appreciate the difficulties in putting forward such suggestions, but they are neither so great nor yet so tragic as those we shall encounter otherwise in the course of the next three years. If nothing comes of our proposals in the way of a conference, we shall have put ourselves right not only with our own people but with world opinion as well. I believe that will be a vitally important factor in the struggle which will follow.
I beg the Government with all my power to make such a statement at the earliest moment—a statement which can

hurt no one but which may be of inestimable benefit to our people and to the entire world. I am confident that the common people, not only of this country but of nearly every country in the world, are at this day and in this hour looking for some such imaginative ideal, for if they have nothing but three years of war to look forward to, then, indeed, to them the world will seem no longer worth while.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. A. Edwards: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. While my hon. and learned Friend was delivering his speech I heard some interruptions from the opposite benches protesting against the speech being read. I do not know if the speech was being read, and, personally, I have no objection to such intelligent speeches being read; frequently we listen to less intelligent speeches being read. I would like to know if there is any rule in this House against speeches being read and if so to whom the rule applies?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The rule is that speeches may not be read but, of course, use may be made of notes. I was aware that the hon. and learned Member was using notes but it is a matter for me to decide and I saw nothing to complain of in the way in which the hon. and learned Member delivered his speech.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Amery: We all share the hon. and learned Member's wish for a better world abroad and at home, and we also share his hope that the world might be spared the horrors of war if we thought a conference held to-morrow could be of any avail. What I failed to discover in his speech was any realisation of the practical difficulties in the way of that kind of conference and of the kind of solution to which he has referred. I also failed to find in his speech any true appreciation of the statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon. That statement met with approval in every quarter of the House, not only for its tone of resolution but also for the breadth with which it handled the bigger questions which lie behind. I should have thought that the Prime Minister made as clear as it is possible to make it at the moment the aims for which we stand. We stand for no gain or advantage to be secured to this country beyond


the preservation of our own liberties and the liberties of our Allies. The Prime Minister made it no less clear that we in no sense contemplate a vindictive settlement. So far from the speech being a speech animated by the "spirit of Versailles," it was a speech which envisaged, as clearly as we can envisage it through the fog of war, an ultimate settlement of European peace which will provide security for the nations of Europe, which will provide each one of them, not Germany alone, with living room and which will also provide a fair living room for the German nation. I cannot see how with any practical advantage we can at this moment go much beyond that or imagine that any elaboration of detail that England and France and the other nations of the world might agree upon would have the slightest effect on the present situation.

Sir S. Cripps: Is it quite clear from the statement of the Prime Minister that he means that in India full democracy and freedom will be permitted?

Mr. Amery: The Prime Minister's statement was confined, and rightly confined, to Europe. The internal affairs of the British Empire he did not mention, but the traditions of freedom within the British Empire will go on developing as they have developed in the past. Our position of trusteeship towards weaker and dependent races in the Colonial Empire will also grow from strength to strength. I cannot see how anything which the Prime Minister could have added in that connection to his speech could have the slightest effect on the German Government whatever. May I suggest that if we are to sketch out a world-wide programme covering India and old age pensioners, and colonial government, we should begin with first things first. I imagine that in the present situation which has arisen, and which has been forced upon Europe by the series of aggressions of the last two or three years, the first conditions we should have to lay down, if we lay down any detailed conditions, would be the liberation of Austria, Czecho-Slovakia and Poland. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Abyssinia."] I dare say Abyssinia, but I am limiting myself to the initial minimum. Does the hon. and learned Member think that any programme that

included those items, however much you further elaborated it, would have the slightest effect in inducing an unbeaten Germany to relax its hold upon the countries which are now under its subjection?

Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Member asked me a question, and perhaps he will allow me to answer it. I think if proposals were put forward, including that Germany should withdraw from these countries, they would bring tremendous pressure to bear from neutral countries, including the United States of America, upon the German Government, and might—I do not say they would— lead to the possibility of avoiding war.

Mr. Amery: I wonder what the real effective intensity of such pressure would be. We had such pressure as the United States of America and neutral Governments were only too ready to give in support of the Prime Minister's policy of a conference before Hitler made his move. Is it likely to be much more effective now than it was then? I doubt it very much.
Of course, we all have our more detailed conception of what the post-war settlement might be. I myself have always felt that it might be something in the nature of a European Commonwealth, and I think that the conception of such a commonwealth contains in itself the real solution of the problems of Europe. I share to some extent the view of the hon. and learned Member that the League of Nations has failed. Why? To my mind it failed, not because the powers assigned to it were inadequate, for none of its members would have been willing to accept greater responsibilities, but because it embraced too much, and even more, because it was, after all, a negative conception. It was not a conception sustained by a positive concrete ideal, which could awaken some wider common patriotism in the light of which the smaller antagonistic patriotisms could be assuaged and diminished, such as the conception of a Europe, the ancient home of Western Christendom, united in this shrinking world, bound together by economic interests and by a great body of traditions which only the nationalism of the last century has divided. That Europe might be conceived as a practical ideal. The right hon. Member the Leader of the Liberal Opposition suggested some system of


European economic co-operation. That might possibly be supplemented by an agreement for mutual conciliation and arbitration. Thus Europe as a common home might gradually become something so dear to the hearts of its members that in the light of that conception, and still more in the light of the practical interests involved, its nations might be willing to lay aside old quarrels and come closer together.

Mr. Mander: I do not quite understand whether the right hon. Gentleman would include Great Britain in such a commonwealth?

Mr. Amery: I would very much sooner not go into the question of detailed boundaries, but if I am asked such a question I would say that we already form part of a wider Commonwealth, and while we should give all our help and support and work closely together with the nations of Europe, there might be reasons which would make it desirable not to be an actual member, just as Canada works with the United States in permanent peace and co-operation but does not actually contemplate becoming a member of the United States Federation. I do not wish to prejudge these issues. On the contrary, if I have gone as far as I have, if was only to indicate that at any rate we, too, on this side may have our ideas as to a positive reconstruction in the future, though we do not believe that this is the moment at which they can be worked out in any detail.
I should like to say that I listened with a great deal of sympathy to what the Leader of the Liberal Opposition said, and to express the belief that with some scheme on those lines, when a settlement is possible, when a conference is possible, a better Europe may be built up. But meanwhile, let us come back to the facts of the present situation. We are not going to get a Europe in which these things can even be discussed—and certainly, not settled—until this system, this tradition, this incarnate gangsterdom which is the German Government today, is broken and has lost the faith of the German people.

Mr. Culverwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that after a long and bloody war we should be calm and better able to discuss these thorny problems?

Mr. Amery: I do not think these problems can best be discussed at a moment when the German people are intoxicated with an easy victory. They can be discussed only when that nation, which at this moment, through its representatives, stands for aggression and tyranny in Europe, has been taught by bitter experience that it must take another path. There is a great deal of talk about the two Germanys. It is true that there are two Germanys. There is the Germany that is ascendant at this moment; and there is another Germany, suppressed, speechless, whether at home or in the concentration camp—the Germany whose traditions go back to the more generous, more cultured, wiser Germany of the dreams of German unity of '48, and other dreams since. But there is a third Germany, larger than either of those two—the vast mass of Germans who support Nazi-ism and believe in it so long as it is successful; and that Germany has to be taught by defeat that aggression does not pay. Only when it has learned that lesson, then it can also learn from us that, so far as we are concerned, there is also room, within a new and settled Europe, for the German nation to have economic freedom and development and to live its own life, without being any more afraid of oppression by its neighbours than its neighbours are afraid of oppression by Germany.
That condition has not come yet, and surely, as practical men, we are concerned not with ideal positions, but with the world as it is to-day—the problem of arms to-day, the overwhelming attack that may come to-morrow upon this city, or upon the gallant army of our devoted allies in France, as it came upon Poland. In that situation, what is the good of talking of detailed proposals as the hon. and learned Member did, and still more of suggesting that they can bring peace to-day? I would remind the House that when, in the darkest hour of the last war, Clemenceau was called in to help to see France through, and was asked what his policy was, he said, "Je fais la guerre"—"I am waging war." At this moment, at any rate, let us accept the statement, to my mind clear and generous as well as unequivocal, which the Prime Minister has made, and let us get on with the terrific problem facing us in the war.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I hope the Prime Minister will not take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), but will pay very careful attention to the speeches that have been made to-day urging that the importance of considering fully the possibility of peace should be taken into account. I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. On this occasion, he is satisfied with the speech of the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister was speaking, I thought back to that fateful Saturday evening before we went into the war, and I wondered whether, on that Saturday evening, the Prime Minister was not speaking more wisely and with a greater consciousness of the greatness of the problem than he was when making his speech to-day. The world has been waiting for this statement by the British Prime Minister, and throughout the world there is tremendous anxiety and a great desire for peace. Everyone recognises, along with the Prime Minister, the background of the present war, and I and my hon. Friends realise it just as much as the Prime Minister and hon. Members opposite; but throughout the world there is a tremendous, a passionate, desire for peace, and peace at once, in spite of the tragedy in Poland. There is talk about how dishonourable it would be to make peace while a bleeding Poland is in the position in which she is. I have heard hon. Members express indignation at the suggestion that there should be peace when one thinks of the tragedy of Poland; but I notice that when the same hon. Members are asked whether the aggression by Soviet Russia on Poland is to be condoned, or whether the results of it are to be disregarded, evidently the question of honour does not arise in the same way. But the pledge to Poland was a pledge against aggression by Russia as much as by Germany.

Colonel Wedģwood: No, certainly not.

Mr. Stephen: Our guarantee to Poland did not specifically mention Germany. It mentioned aggression, and only aggression, and the pledge was one which had reference to Russia, although at that time it was not supposed that Russia would become an aggressor.

Colonel Wedģwood: Does not the hon. Member know that when the Russians

entered Poland they were welcomed universally by the peasants and the Jews, and by every man of his own sort in that country?

Mr. Stephen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that the Russian forces in that part of Poland are still fighting against Polish forces?

Colonel Wedgwood: Rot.

Mr. Stephen: The right hon. Gentleman says "rot." I can only say that he changes his opinion so often that I cannot keep going round with him. He is in such a whirligig in politics. I am pointing out that the pledge given to Poland was one which entailed the defence of Poland against Soviet Russia just as much as against Germany. Yet there is no suggestion anywhere that British honour involves us in going to war with Soviet Russia, and I am glad of that.

Mr. Raikes: May I remind the hon. Member of one point? Is it not a fact that, under the guarantee, this country was called upon to come to the help of Poland if the Polish Government called upon our Government to assist them in the event of aggression? Is it not also the case that the Polish Government did call upon us to assist them in the case of the aggression from Germany, but that, strictly speaking, there was no call from the Polish Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—to assist them in regard to Russia? At any rate, no call was made and I think there is that difference between the two cases.

Mr. Stephen: The House has heard the interruption of the hon. Member. If hon. Members and the Government are content to base their case on the strict letter of the law in that way, then I think the less we say about honour the better.

Mr. Remer: rose—

Mr. Stephen: I have only a limited time to speak and I have already given way. I would prefer now to proceed with my argument. I wish to make it perfectly plain that I think the British Government are very well-advised in not seeking to declare war on Soviet Russia. I think they have acted wisely in that respect. But all this talk about honour in connection with the problem which we are facing to-day, strikes me as being largely


hypocritical. A period came in the last war when there was a great movement in favour of peace by negotiation. The Government of the day refused to consider anything like peace by negotiation. They said, "We must go on, in order to get full security for the future." It was not possible, they maintained, to obtain security by a negotiated peace. Here we are in the same position to-day. We hear all those words being used to-day which were used during the last war. We hear people saying, "We must go on with the fighting; we must get victory." An hon. Member has said here that the one thing is to gain the victory. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said that from 1914 to 1918. Well, we got the victory in 1918 and yesterday the Secretary of State for War said in this House:
How strange it is that twice in a generation men should take this journey and that sons should be treading again upon the soil made sacred by their fathers."—OFFICIAL REPORT, nth October, 1939; col. 349, Vol. 352.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Whose fault is that?"] The fact remains that the British Government and their Allies, in the last war secured as great a victory as was ever obtained in any war, and a generation afterwards the sons of the men who fought in that war are treading the same soil in another war. I make bold to say that if this war goes on even if victory does come, the grandsons of those men will be called upon to tread the same soil in another great carnage and slaughter in days to come. The fact of the matter is that we are all inclined to use phrases in connection with this great problem. It is not facing the problem to say, "We will go on and get the victory and then we shall be able to have security in the future."
The Prime Minister said that in order to get peace we must have from the enemy, acts and guarantees of peace. I would like to ask the Prime Minister: What are the acts by our enemies, what are the guarantees that the Germans would be called upon to give, in order that peace may be made? The Prime Minister did not tell us what those acts were to be. If the Germans were to set up an independent Poland in part of the country which they have overrun, would that be considered an action on

their part that would be necessary for peace? What would be the guarantees? I cannot think what guarantees you can get for peace that will prevent these crises every six months, such as we have had during recent years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Remove Hitler."] I am told that if we remove Hitler we shall get it. I was told the same thing about the Kaiser. There was tremendous feeling in this country about the Kaiser, and a General Election was won on the expression of a determination to hang him. Then, in the process of time, the King in this country sent a message of congratulation to the Kaiser who had reached his 80th birthday, wishing him many more years of happiness. I would say to the hon. Member who speaks about removing Hitler that, possibly, a Conservative British Prime Minister a few years after this, will be sending a message of sympathy to Adolf Hitler, if that gentleman is not very well. These things happen, and I would like the House to realise that we will not get security by any method of war.
What was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) appeared to me to be sound common sense. In spite of all the wars that have been fought, there is still war in the world. An hon. Member said to me yesterday that he did not think we would ever get real peace until we made up our minds to solve the problem of what caused war. Nothing like that is being done to-day. We are facing the possibility of the loss of millions of lives of the young people of our generation. Millions of young people in the world to-day will lose their lives in this struggle, and after the war has gone on for a certain number of years, then, once more, a conference will be held. Surely it is common sense to have the conference to-day. If there is a conference to-day, I am told that you cannot trust the word of Hitler or of the German Government, and I am asked "what is the good of having a conference when you cannot trust the word of the German Government?" I say have the conference and make your terms at the conference wise and generous terms, terms which will allow each of the nations the opportunity of a decent life, and then you will have the possibility of permanent peace in the years to come.
About the beginning of this year I ventured to intervene in a Debate on foreign affairs and said that we were moving towards war. The Prime Minister has been criticised because of his policy of appeasement. It was successful last year for the time being, but he threw it overboard and replaced it by a policy of rearmament, and then Members are surprised that events developed so as to lead to a second European war. If you proceed along those lines you are bound to get war. I said that, as I saw it, what was necessary was a great crusade in the world. Give the people in each country something worth fighting for. The trouble in every country in the world to-day is the poverty of the people. Hitler gets the people of Germany behind him because he promises to solve the problem of their poverty. He tells them about their misery and how he and his colleagues will lead them out of it, and he leads them into Poland. The British Government should put forward terms of peace which go to the root of the problem which creates war in the world, the problem of poverty.
The British Government has to face up to the fact that, with the great territory of the British Empire, the German people naturally feel aggrieved and are determined to carry on with what we call their policy of aggression when they are seeking for an opportunity for the development of their trade and their power. I agree absolutely with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) when he said that if we were believers in democracy we should believe in democracy in India just as much as in Germany. Whenever the question of democracy in India is raised, we are told that the Indian people are not fit and that we have to be the trustees who will lead them in a new and better democracy as the years and the generations pass. That may seem all very well to the British people but it does not sound the least bit convincing to people in other countries. I am convinced that we shall simply go from slaughter to slaughter until we get the working people in each of the countries to make up their minds that they are not going to allow themselves to be slaughtered in order to keep the present system of Imperialism going.
The Prime Minister's statement to-day was to me very disappointing. I hope the people of the country will examine it

fully and try to see what is behind those phrases. How are we to get security in the future? If you get your victory and you make your peace, will you make it like the Versailles Treaty? If you do not, will you make it even worse? Are you going to hold down the German people? Are you going to divide up the German Empire? The other week I heard two men discussing the matter and one said, "I see in the papers that after this war we are not to have a Versailles peace. I agree with that. I think the Versailles peace was a bad peace. It treated the Germans very badly. Next time when they make peace they will have to divide the German Empire up into the separate countries of which it is composed." Evidently he thought that was the way to peace. It is obvious that any such attempt will give Hitler No. 2 a great opportunity of winning support, coming forward for the unity of the Reich. As I see it, there is no hope along the way the Government is taking at present. If you carry on the war, millions of lives will be lost and thousands of millions of pounds will be spent in waste. Surely, it is a much better project for the British Government to respond to the offer of the German Government by coming forward with its peace terms and making definite proposals. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that there were certain principles which had to be satisfied, but we have to go further than the statement of those principles. We have to try to conceive what the economic position of the various countries would need to be in order that in each there would be the possibility of satisfaction of the peoples needs and the avoiding of wars in the future.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of the British Government to visualise the kind of arrangement they would have to make if they were absolutely victorious. I have not very much hope in this Government from the way in which they treat their own old people and the dependants of the soldiers and, with the spirit that is manifest there, I can see the war carrying on for 20 years if the present Government are allowed to remain in office, and it will be very difficult to shift them if there are no elections. The future appears to be very black indeed unless the people rise in revolt. At present I see the development of violence in the


world and in this country in every department of our ordinary life, restriction after restriction set upon the people, with a great outburst of savagery overthrowing all those restraints at some future period. I do not want to see this development of violence. I believe that the way to peace is the sound way, and that the Government would be fulfilling their responsibility to the people of this and other countries if, instead of talking about the need for acts and the need for security, the Prime Minister and his colleagues tried to clear their minds. What do they want? What would be sufficient? Let them make up their minds what is behind the phrases that they are using. What would be security? What are the conditions? What is really involved in this word "security"? Let them clear their minds and, having done so, let them put the result before the nations of the world and, in a conference, seek to bring them to the acceptance of what they have worked out as being a sound basis for world peace.

Mr. Montaģue: Before the hon. Member sits down, may I put a question to him? I do so quite sincerely and not for the purpose of scoring any point at all. He speaks of terms, and he advises the Government representing this country to put its terms forward, so that they can be considered by the German nation and the German leaders. Terms imply a line below which you are prepared to stand firm, and the question that I wish to ask the hon. Member is this: Given the presentation of terms, if those terms are not accepted is he prepared to go on fighting?

Mr. Stephen: I am prepared to go on fighting if I get the stating of the terms and those terms are not accepted, but if someone else drew up the terms, I should have to accept those terms, and I cannot conceive of their being acceptable.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I find it difficult to address the House on this occasion, because I suffer from an incapacity, not being able to withdraw my attention from other speakers, and as I have been in the Chamber all the afternoon, I have not been able to prepare any light of thought or continuous thesis to assist me to address the House. The nearest that I can go to that is by trying to say a

few sentences, necessarily rather disjointed, which come to the top of my head as I look at the notes which I have made about earlier speeches, particularly about the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). He was extremely anxious that there should be a perfectly clear and full declaration of our war aims and an offer to negotiate upon that. It seemed to me there was perhaps some slight analogy between his own speech and the disadvantages there might be in having more detailed war aims than we already have, that one might find oneself in the middle of a Debate delivering a speech which had been composed before the earlier speeches had been delivered. I should have thought that the speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon did put our war aims about as definitely as they reasonably can be put at this moment. I do not suggest that it may not be possible to add details later, but at this moment it seems to me that the most important thing that we can do here is to make sure that we put up the minimum number of flags.
People often say that it does not matter which side wins a war, though I notice that that has not been said lately quite so much as it used to be said, and I do not believe it would ever be said by anyone who had ever lived in any country where a war had been lost. In spite of what is said by Marxist and other philosophisers of history, wars in the main are not consciously fought for oil wells or corn fields; in the main, wars are fought over some point of sentiment, very commonly some form of religious sentiment, and the greater the number of things that you announce beforehand to be indispensable to you, the more difficult is it to finish a war. It is very dubious, therefore, whether it would be wise now to put up any flag more than the Polish flag; that is to say, that we believe Europe will not be a habitable Continent as long as there is a German Government which considers the sort of aggression which has been going on for the last five years, and indeed—and here I agree with the hon. and earned Member for East Bristol— really for the last 20 years, to be profitable. The only mark to which we are absolutely pledged is that, as long as the result of the war is that the German Government are better off in regard to Poland because of this war, so long will


it be our duty to continue fighting this war. I would suggest that it is extremely dubious whether we should at this moment be wise to tie ourselves to many more flags than that.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went; and, having returned;—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,—

1. Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939.
2. Solicitors (Disciplinary Committee) Act, 1939.
3. Education (Emergency) Act,1939.
4. Education (Emergency) (Scot-land) Act, 1939.
5. Courts (Emergency Powers)(Scotland) Act, 1939.
6. Execution of Trusts (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939.

THE WAR.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I had begun by saying that although clearly there is much to be said for definition of aim in war, as in any other enterprise, yet, on the other hand, the greater the number of flags which we set up as indispensable to us at the beginning of the war, the more difficult and the longer we may find it to win that war; there is the further disadvantage that we may find it more difficult to carry our own people with us. I fully agree with what the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol said about the paramount necessity and the extreme difficulty of carrying wholeheartedly with us the great bulk of our people if we should have a long and difficult war. That is true, but if we put into our war aims everything that any section of the population would like to be a war aim, we may think that thereby we are bringing them all in, but it is also true that we are antagonising almost every section of the population too. Every dispensable war aim which is added is apt to weaken us in that way.

The same thing is to some extent true of peace, or the sort of period of non-war which we have recently been enduring.
The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol told us that he and his party have always been consistently opposed to the Hitler regime in Germany. It seems to me a great pity that they should have been so opposed. I do not ask them to like the Hitler regime, nor, if my tastes were important, would I disguise the fact that I dislike the Hitler regime probably as much as they do, but when it is made part of the internal politics of one country to dislike the government and, more than the government, the regime in another country, we have a very serious factor making towards antagonism and eventual war between those countries. There was an occasion when Mr. Gladstone observed Prince Bismarck behaving in a somewhat similar way to that in which Herr Hitler has been behaving lately at the time of what is called "the carving up of the African Continent," and Mr. Gladstone, although he was writing to a colleague and not speaking in public, did not permit himself to go further in condemnation of Prince Bismarck than this phrase, which I think I remember fairly accurately: "I cannot disguise from myself a suspicion that there are in Prince Bismarck's character elements of which I cannot wholly approve." I would suggest that that is about as far as a politician ought to go, at any rate in public, in disapproval of a politician of another country.
The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol went on in his explanation of his war aims practically to tell us that unless our war aims included what he regarded as the political and social desiderata for the next two generations, he would not play. That seems to me an illegitimate use of a war situation inside your own country, and a use not in the least calculated to facilitate the making of peace with other countries. There are all sorts of things which some of us think ought to be done to improve the management of this country or of this Empire after the war, but for any section of us now to try to foist upon other sections any of those things as part of our war aims must necessarily lead to disunity at home and must also give legitimate excuse to our enemies abroad


to say that what we are fighting about is not any fault or concern of theirs.
We have no business to distinguish between the German Government and the German people in so far as we are talking about what our Government is to do in conducting war, and the business of our Government in this connection has nothing to do with old age pensions or the government of Jamaica or any of those things. The business of our Government in this connection is to go on fighting until the German Government is willing to do those things without which, in our judgment, there will be no peace in Europe, whatever it may be called.
The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol can find nothing in his country as it existed a month ago to approve. He asked whether, at the end of this war, we are to return to the domestic conditions existing before the war. He told us he had not written down his words, so he cannot check me, but I think I wrote his particular words down correctly: "the altogether uninspiring and tragic domestic conditions of this country." There is much in this country which is uninspiring, there is much which is tragic. Incidentally, I thought those rather disjunctive than conjunctive epithets, I should have thought that tragedy should inspire as well as purge. There is certainly much in this country that is uninspiring and that is tragic. But there is certainly much in this country, and there was five weeks ago, which on any calculus, on a material calculus or a spiritual calculus, will make this country compare favourably with this country at any previous period, or with any other country at this period; and if we are to talk of one of our war aims being to get for the first time in this country something inspiring and something not tragic in our domestic conditions it seems to me that we are starting a war with what must appear to all foreigners and to most of our own people to be a manifest and obvious hypocrisy.
The last portion of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was about what he called "guarantees" when this war is over. I have not thought proper to leave the Chamber for long enough to look up the word "guarantee," but I have always observed in this House that

lawyers are rather more apt than most other men not to define their terms accurately when they are once outside their own particular business. As far as I can remember "guarantee" in this connection can mean only one of two things. "Guarantee" either means some power which is so much stronger than the other States concerned that it can certainly put right whatever is wrong, or it means having something physical, as it were a pledge in pawn for that purpose. It might or might not be politically wise at the end of a victorious war to garrison the Rhineland, but if you did thus hold the Rhineland that might properly be called a guarantee that Germany would not go to war again.
The things of which the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to talk to us on the basis of this word "guarantees" were not, in my judgment, in any sense of the word guarantees at all. What he talked of was a bigger and better League of Nations, to be called "Federation" instead. I fully agree with him and with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and, I suppose, with the great majority of the rest of my contemporaries, that when we can get some sort of minimum community of government, at least between the inhabitants of Europe, it will be a very good thing—if we can keep it. In this connection we always talk about "law and order." Law and order in this country, and in every other country, can only come on the basis of the units inside the country being federable units. You cannot federate a mongoose, an arm-chair and a toy balloon. You can only federate things which have a considerable basis of common pre-suppositions, and surely the whole difficulty about the League of Nations was that there was not a sufficient basis of common pre-supposition. It was first seen in the case of the United States of America that there was not sufficient common interest and common agreement about bases for the United States of America to stay in. It may be that the Bolshevik philosophy of life is a much better one than ours, but there was not between it and us a sufficiency of common vocabulary—not in the direct, but in the indirect sense—for us to be able to communicate with each other and to be even so loosely and quasi-federated as was attempted in the League of Nations.
I hope earnestly that, as a result of this war, there may be some more solid foundation for the Concert of Europe, to use the old term, than there was in 1918, but for us to announce now as a war aim that we intend to go on fighting until we have got that, seems to me to be the extremity of rashness. I would say to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol and to the hon. and I think equally learned Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen)-—who said, "After all, we got a great victory in 1918 and what was the good of that? Why did that all go; wrong?"—that I believe one of the main reasons why things went wrong was to be found in the excessive moralising over the last war. Incidentally, that came from the Left rather than from the Right, from the "Daily News" and the "New Statesman," from writers like Massing-ham and H. G. Wells—

Mr. Buchanan: And Kingsley Martin.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not think he was very much in it. I think we should talk little about the moral inferiority of anyone else. I have no doubt that if moral averages could be worked out our Front Bench would come out several decimal points higher than the Nazi front bench. I have no doubt at all about that, but it is not a basis for a war, or even for a policy. What was wrong with the peace of Versailles even more than any excessive harshness to Germany—there was some harshness—and what did more harm was, by the war guilt clauses for example —the right hon. Gentleman knows what I mean—and telling the Germans that their moral inferiority must keep them out of colonies. And there was the ridiculous nonsense about hanging the Kaiser. I would draw the attention of the hon. Member for Camlachie to the fact that I and most other soldiers and returned soldiers at that time detested that phrase as much as anyone else did. Those were the things which, in my judgment, did more harm than any material steepness or tightness to cause resentment. You can knock a man down and take something away from him which is rightly his —or rightly yours—by superior force and in the long run manage to go on living with each other again; but you cannot knock a man down and take what is his away from him, or even take away what you consider to be rightly yours, if, at

the same time, you asseverate that you are doing it because of your extreme moral superiority; you cannot do that and then go on living with him afterwards. That is why I hope that, if there is to be an elaboration of war aims, that elaboration will be slow, it will never be too voluminous, and that it will be extremely careful to keep, as far as it can, its feet on the ground.

6.43 p.m.

Colonel Wedģwood: I have not been an admirer of the Prime Minister's speeches or policy but I find myself singularly in agreement with him to-day. I fancy I saw in that speech something of that moral leadership which is essential if we are to have the country behind us and to see this war through. We want a certain amount of confidence that our aims are just and that what we are aiming at is worth a great sacrifice. If we have more speeches of that sort they will do the country good, and do good also in Germany. It is no use at the present time summoning a conference or attending a conference. We cannot go into conference on equal terms with a nation which has just had what it regards as an almost miraculous victory. Before any conference can take place we must be more on equal terms with those who are against us.

Mr.Maxton: I listened to the statements of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air and they told us that we were on top of Germany now.

Colonel Wedģwood: I believe we are, but it depends upon what the other side of the conference believes.

Miss Rathbone: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think he knows what Hitler thinks? Does he think that Hitler's peace terms are his last words? If we have reason to be optimistic does not Hitler know it?

Colonel Wedģwood: I do not know what Hitler thinks, but if I were in the position of Germany to-day having, during the last month, overrun successfully, and I believe with very small expense in life, another country—I am afraid that those telegrams to-day cannot be based on fact—I should think I was going into the conference with all the winning cards


in my hands. We must not risk a complete failure of the conference by going in now when the cards are stacked in that way. It is also vitally important, before we have anything in the nature of a conference such as has been proposed by Herr Hitler, that we should have complete diplomatic contact with the people who are going to take part in it and who are not already on our side. It would be ridiculous not to have close contact with Russia, for instance., and to know Stalin's views on Czecho-Slovakia, before we went into conference in order to see how far their aims could be worked into the security which we desire. A premature conference which failed would be fatal.
Most speakers to-day have touched upon a matter which has been at the back of all our minds during this war, and indeed before. It is, whether we can as a result of the war, build up a federation of the world sufficiently strong and all embracing to maintain peace. The difficulties in the way of such a federation are well known to everybody in this House. The ties of nationality are so strong in normal times and the desire in each country for sovereignty so great, that it is impossible to induce people to make the sacrifices necessary to go into a federation. That position does not necessarily exist in times of war. What binds us all together in times of war is common danger. Common danger cements, whereas you get decentralisation and development of the more democratic form of rule in peace time, each State or province desiring to control its own forces. In times of danger we are driven together. We are even driven into autocratic or bureaucratic ways in order to protect ourselves from the common danger. Danger is the cement.
I would urge upon the House how desirable it is to use that common danger and that natural tendency towards union during war, when everything is in its favour, rather than to leave it to the end of the war when once more we shall be developing treaties of Versailles or of Brest-Litovsk and all the nationalistic and exclusive tendencies which breed further war. There will be the passionate desire of the governing classes, whether they are on top or whether they are Bolshevik, the desire of those who are in power to retain the maximum amount of power and to

surrender nothing to the common or federal government.
The possibilities now are considerable. The Prime Minister has recently invited to this country representatives of the Dominions and of India to help in the executive administration of the war. It is a step which we have all welcomed because we recognise that it is desirable and is probably inevitable. If we are to go through this war with unanimity. It is obviously much better that, in the executive government, we should have those who represent the governments of the Allied countries. We have set up a Supreme War Council, which meets sometimes in France and sometimes over here, for carrying on the two essential matters of Defence and foreign policy. The question of war aims, for instance, depends on the Supreme War Council of ourselves and our allies. We have got in that council the beginnings of the federal system. If your vision of the federal system in future is, as mine is, a government of the whole world under which each country administers its own affairs as it likes, but common defence is a federal subject, we have already got to that stage; and the greater the danger becomes, the more the functions of that Supreme War Council will develop. But any federation, to my mind, must include two other things. You must have your federal Parliament and also free trade within the federation. The difficulties in the way of both these things are, of course, obvious. It would be almost impossible in time of peace to get our Dominions to drop their trade barriers between each other, let alone those against other countries. But in time of war the thing is very different.
I would suggest the possibility of something that would be a very unconstitutional and revolutionary change. It would be in the interest of unity in war and peace if we could get in this House and in another place representatives of all the Dominions and Colonies—it is well known that in the French Parliament there are representatives of the Colonies, coloured men with the rest. Then we should learn in this House a great deal more about the problems of the world, and they who came among us would learn that excellent lesson which is taught to everybody here through the realisation of common interests and common friendships. There is


no institution in the world equal to the British Parliament in the way in which it levels all people and interests.

Mr. Gallacher: No.

Colonel Wedģwood: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is himself one of the victims of the fraternisation of Parliamentary institutions. It is of enormous advantage that we should mix socially if we are to convert each other and the object of debate is conversion. Since the League of Nation, as it was, is almost impossible, some such system as federal union should be tried. The objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and some others has been that it should be a federation of Europe only; that we in the British Empire are a federation ourselves. I do not think it is possible, as a result of any war, to put on the table a complete scheme for the federation of everybody. Federation must grow, and can only grow, voluntarily; but if we start contemplating a federation of ourselves, France and the British Empire we have a nucleus; and as soon as we are strong enough and as soon as we get the blessing of other great Powers like Russia and America, we should be strong enough to attract the lesser nations. At the present time they are terrified of having anything to do with us or with any of the other great Powers; they are frightened of taking sides. But when they have the opportunity of joining a federal union, and the union is strong enough to protect them, it is possible that the federal union will spread.
I think the Government could carry a great deal of conviction to the German people about the honesty of their aims if they would not merely say that they are in favour of a solution in that direction, but also do something which would start putting the idea into practical operation. Therefore, I should like to see not only India and the Dominions but the French represented in this House, and our people represented in the French Parliament, so that we might get that common interest which has united Scotland, England and Wales in the past, and which could quite possibly unite the world at large. Let us get to know each other and realise our common hopes as well as our special interests. We here

in this House do not think only of our constituencies. We do not even think, in nine cases out of 10, whether we are Welsh Members or Scottish Members or English Members. We have acquired what Burke believed to be the true outlook of a Member of Parliament, realising that we are equally responsible for the whole of the British Empire. That is an admirable beginning for a federation.
Any move in that direction would undoubtedly be popular: not only popular in this country, but popular in the Dominions and India, popular even in France; and it would be an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, which would prove to the German people that we are not just out to smash Germany, but that we are out to smash that danger to democracy which we see ever around us. If you have any federal idea in your minds, you have to remember that free trade is an essential within the federation. I would welcome anything that would increase free trade between England and France and between England and the Empire and our Allies. I believe that free trade, free intercourse, is the best thing to produce a common spirit—destroying narrow nationalism and building up a union of the peoples, not merely a union of governments but a union of common sense and common humanity.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Emmott: We have just listened to an interesting and, if I may say so, an attractive speech from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the nature of federation and the circumstances in which it can be brought into being. But I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to say that his speech suggested to me the criticism that has occurred to me while I have listened to some others in this Debate, and that is that it appeared to be a little out of relation with present reality. We are faced at this moment with a reality of a very grim nature. And it is our duty in this Debate to give a lead to the people. The people are looking to us for guidance. Here in Parliament to-day the issue should be stated with clarity, and all false argument should be exposed and condemned. As the war goes on much may happen to confuse the mind of our people. All the greater, then, is the need to ensure that now there is no confusion of


thought. The British people have courage and determination in high measure, but if these qualities are to exercise their full force in carrying the British Empire through this war to a victorious conclusion, they must rest upon the unassailable conviction not only of the justice of our cause, but of the necessity of defending it by arms. The emotional and nervous strain of war is apt to make people lose hold of the idea that was the original reason and justification of war. I believe that it is our duty now to state the issue that is involved in this war in a way which will make it impossible for people hereafter, when the impression of the origin and justification of the war has become a little dimmed, to look back upon this occasion and say that here and now France and Britain could rightly have made peace with Germany.
Upon the reason of the war much has been said that moves upon a high plane of idea and argument. Our people will, I am sure, throughout the progress of this war look up to their ideals and in them will find strength and inspiration. But these ideals and principles derive from practical circumstances and real interests, and it is only a perfectly clear appreciation of these circumstances, of these interests and necessities, which will keep the mind of our people true and fixed on its objective.
I wish to use only few words in stating the original and simple issue as I see it. It is this. Is Germany to be allowed to break up the States of Europe one by one, to destroy them, and so to dominate the whole Continent? To that question there can be only one answer. This process we must prevent. It was upon this principle and for this cause that we were engaged in wars with France from the time of Louis XIV to the time of Napoleon. Poland was merely one stage in this process. There we thought it right and necessary to resist. A new Poland will in time arise. But now, at this moment, Germany has successfully asserted her power, though not her right, to set upon Poland, to break her up and to destroy her. She has won a great military victory in Poland. We are entitled to ask all those who, in this Debate and outside the walls of this House, are now calling for conference and the cessation of war, this question: Are they prepared to make peace now, upon the terms, such

as they are, suggested by Germany? If they make peace now, without the restoration of Poland, it is a German victory. Germany has won a great military victory in Poland. If we make such a peace as this we accept a German victory. Do we accept that? Of course we do not. If we make peace now upon the only suggestions, vague as they are, that have been made to us from Germany, we have failed in our purpose. It cannot be too clearly or precisely stated by any Member in this Debate that nothing should deflect us from our purpose: and that purpose is to win victory over the enemy, to defeat the enemy in the field. In any case, even if there were now to be a cessation of hostilities, there would be no peace. It would merely be an uneasy and suspicious pause in the hardly interrupted process of German aggrandisement.
There is some talk outside the walls of this House, and there has been some talk here to-night, of conference. Why do men love to delude themselves? Why do they raise up confused images to put between themselves and reality? Conference will succeed where there is the will to agree: the will to agree upon conditions acceptable by all. Where is the evidence of the will of the German Government to-day to agree with us on terms that will be acceptable to both? Where is the will in Germany to-day to agree with us? Without this it is idle to talk of conference.
I wish to say before I sit down a few words upon one other aspect of this question. There is some evidence that the recent action of Russia has rather distracted the attention of some of our people from the immediate and paramount necessity of winning the victory over Germany. That is a bad thing. It is plain that Russian policy in Poland and the Baltic States, and perhaps too in the Balkan States, is antagonistic to the interests of Germany. But surely that antagonism does not affect the issue between Britain and France, on the one hand, and Germany, on the other. That antagonism between Russia and Germany does not at all change our duty. What things are implicit in the dark and fell purposes of the Russian Government, whose action against Poland was as iniquitous as was that of Germany, is a question which lies in the future. When that question is posed, we will answer it.


Meanwhile our duty is plain. It was expressed in words used by the Prime Minister on 20th September, which cannot be improved. He said:
Our general purpose in this struggle is well known. It is to redeem Europe from the perpetual and recurring fear of German aggression and enable the peoples of Europe to preserve their independence and their liberties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th September, 1939; col. 978, Vol. 351.]
That, Mr. Speaker, is our duty.

7.9 p.m.

Sir R. Acland: There seems to me to be one disadvantage about fighting just to defeat the enemy. It is this. Although no doubt a great number of our people will fight with a single-minded devotion for the one purpose of defeating the enemy, there are others who remember that this country has been fighting to defeat its enemies off and on now for a great many centuries, and we do rather want to feel—these people want to feel— that this time when we defeat our enemy we shall not have to do it all over again in another quarter of a century. Therefore, it seems to me that to place our war aims on so narrow a foundation is not to carry much enthusiasm for our cause.
I agree with every word spoken by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and I wish I could have said the same things with the same eloquence and authority. There is, however, one thing I should like to add to what he said, and that is to develop the words used by the Prime Minister, with great emphasis, namely, "Acts rather than words." Is the Hitler Government the only Government in Europe which is to show acts rather than words? If we are thinking merely of the relations between Hitler and our own Government, perhaps it is right for us to ask that he should show acts rather than words, but when we are thinking of relations between this country and neutrals, and the relations between this Government and the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the people who think like him, then, surely, the neutrals and these other people have the right to ask us for acts as well as words. We need from neutral countries not merely moral but economic support. We should be prepared to take risks to gain their

economic support, and I hope the time may come when we shall have their military support in this struggle. If we are to get that support, I suggest that some acts and not merely words are required.
It is a sad fact, and we ought to recognise it, that our record in these last few years is just a little bit against us. Are we fighting to put an end to aggression? If so, there are some neutral countries who have taken the pains to observe that we on this side of the House have over and over again asked the Government, at one stage or another of our journey in foreign affairs, to do this, that, or the other. Never have we asked them to declare war, although we have recognised that what we proposed involved a certain risk of war. We have asked them to do these things to rid the world of aggression, and from the other side of the House on every occasion has come the reply: "No. That would mean war." I can recall my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), the Leader of the Opposition and others pleading with the Government in this sense, and I can hear, as it were, the mocking cries from the Government benches of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall), the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) and others, crying out on every occasion: "What you propose means war." For about eight years that has been going on. The Government have been afraid to risk war to end aggression. Therefore, it is not easy for us to stand up before the neutrals now and say that we are conducting a war to end aggression.
I would ask hon. Members to listen to two sentences from a right hon. Member of this House. The first was said when the first great act of aggression was made in Manchuria in 1932:
There is one great difference between 1919 and now and it is this—in no circumstances will this Government authorise this country to be a party to the struggle.
They would do nothing to end aggression then, in 1932. Then there is this terrible sentence:
I am not prepared to see a single ship sunk even in a successful naval battle in an attempt to restore Abyssinian independence."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1936; col. 1629, Vol. 325.]


Those two sentences were both uttered by the right hon. Gentleman who is now our Chancellor of the Exchequer and responsible for our economic effort in this war to end aggression and to restore the independence of Poland. Is it good enough now merely to say that we are out to end aggression? The phrase in the speech of the Prime Minister that won the most resounding cheers from hon. Members opposite was that in which he said that a certain line of conduct on our part would mean the recognition of the aggressor's conquest and of his right to do what he likes with the conquered. Unfortunately, not once or twice but over and over again we have done something to recognise conquest and the right of the conqueror to do what he likes with those he has conquered. Therefore, it is deeds and not words that are required from us.
I ask hon. Members opposite this question. Is it their idea that at the end of the war the British Colonial Empire shall stand in just the same relation to Great Britain as it stands to-day? I do not ask for an immediate answer, but I should very much like hon. Members opposite to consider that point. At the end of the war is the British Colonial Empire to be owned by Great Britain in the way that it is owned now?

Sir Patrick Hannon: Please God, it will.

Sir R. Acland: So that is the answer. As long as that remains our attitude, it is no use pretending to neutral countries that we are fighting for some new world order. We must proclaim now that at the end of the war the British Colonial Empire will not be left in our hands but will be under the administration of some international organisation for the benefit of mankind and for the benefit of the people who live there. I know that that proposal bristles with so many difficulties that the mind almost turns from such a prospect, but I would suggest that representatives of all the neutral countries in the world who have not committed acts of aggression in the last 20 years should be invited here to consider with us the exact means by which the British Colonial Empire might be utilised.

Mr. McKie: Would the hon. Baronet suggest that the Dutch and Belgian Empire should be modelled on the same lines?

Sir R. Acland: Our Empire is so much larger than any other Empire.

Mr. Lipson: What has size to do with principle?

Sir R. Acland: There is something to be said for those who are richest making the first act of generosity.

Mr. McKie: A large amount of our Empire is self-governing, but the Dutch and Belgian Colonial Empires are not self-governing.

Sir R. Acland: The Dutch are not now involved in a war in which they are asking for the support of other people to help them to victory. I appreciate the strict logic of the view expressed by hon. Members opposite. I am not one of those who believe that in politics it is impossible to draw a line somewhere. You can draw a line in all sorts of places. In considering how the practical problems in this war can be solved, we should consider transferring our Colonial Empire from our sole charge to a real international charge, which would give a guarantee of good faith and which would make the world realise that we are fighting for something wholly different from that for which the Nazis are fighting. It is not as seemed to be suggested in the speech that we last heard, that the Germans are fighting to beat us and that we are fighting to beat them.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) has been concerned with dscussing what is to happen at the end of the war. I submit, with all respect, that that is not the issue which is really before us to-day. We are concerned with a much more immediate problem. The issue as I see it is this: Is the proposal of Herr Hitler an opportunity to make peace now, or is it not? Does the speech of the Prime Minister close the door entirely to negotiations to that end? I submit that that is the issue which we should consider to-night. It is the bankruptcy of statesmanship if differences between nations can be settled only by war. It is the duty of statesmen to see whether it is not possible to bridge the differences by other means. Therefore, I would support the appeal which has been made by other speakers, that the Government should not content themselves with saying that the proposals of


Herr Hitler are not acceptable and that we cannot make peace with Herr Hitler, but that we should say, if we are not prepared to talk peace on his terms, on what terms we are prepared to talk. I do not ask that the Government at this moment should put forward detailed plans for world reorganisation, but I think it is only right that we should state clearly on what basis we think it is possible that talks might begin.
I think every Member of this House must realise his very special responsibility so far as an issue of this kind is concerned. We know that on the answer to it depend the lives of millions of men and perhaps the future of civilisation. Therefore, it is a question which we must ask ourselves. We cannot altogether be satisfied to let the Government answer it for us. I am not advocating to-night peace on Hitler's terms; I do not think that that is the issue before the House. I think the true issue is this: We can say to Herr Hitler, "Quite clearly, there are some things in your proposals to which we could not possibly agree. We cannot agree that Russia and yourself between you should be allowed to decide the fate of Poland or of south-eastern Europe." We ought to make it quite clear that the terms of peace or the basis for a conference must be such that aggression does not pay. We must put down terms which will not create, necessarily, a sham peace or an uneasy future, but we should state clearly what we conceive might be the possible basis of peace.
If the Prime Minister says we cannot accept the mere assurance of Herr Hitler we ought, as well, to say what guarantee we would be prepared to accept. We ought to say what we have in mind with regard to Poland. I believe that we could say that we would be prepared to discuss terms of peace, provided that there was some guarantee for the preservation of the political independence of Poland and of Bohemia, and that we should also be prepared to negotiate on those parts of Herr Hitler's programme which met with general consent, when he told us that he is prepared to talk about disarmament, about freer trade and about the question of currency regulations. I submit that in an issue of this kind it is not enough to concentrate entirely on the points of difference and disagreement,

but we should rather see whether there is not in the proposals something on which we can build a bridge upon which agreement might be possible.

Mrs. Tate: Does the hon. Member think that he could believe what Herr Hitler said when Herr Hitler said it? That is a little relevant.

Mr. Lipson: I do not think that the question of peace between Germany and ourselves necessarily depends upon whether Herr Hitler's word is to be taken or not. It will depend on the kind of peace that we make and the kind of guarantee upon which we insist. Those, I submit, are the points upon which we should concentrate. I do not believe that the best way to appeal to the German people is to make an issue of this kind a purely personal one. It is something very much bigger than that. It had occurred to me during the Debate that very little has been said about Russia and the change in the political situation that has been produced by Russia playing an important part once more in European affairs. I think the advent of Russia must alter the European situation very considerably, and what we in this country ought to be careful about is that we should not necessarily drive Russia into the arms of Germany. If the war should continue inevitably that is bound to happen.
I welcome the trade agreement with Russia which was announced to-day. From that it is quite clear that we are prepared to do our best to cultivate friendly relations with Russia in spite of the fact that, apparently, Russia has been guilty of an act of aggression. If it were possible to establish now the basis of an honourable peace it would also enable us to establish relations with Russia which might contribute towards a more friendly and a safer Europe. Russia has succeeded in preventing Germany from doing many of the things which we feared Germany was trying to do. We feared that Germany was trying to establish her power in the Baltic. Russia has put great difficulties in the way of that. We were also afraid that Germany was going to extend her domination in South-East Europe. Russia has prevented that, and, therefore, a great deal of the menace of Germany has disappeared as a result of Russias


action. We ought to consider the international situation afresh in the light of what has happened.

Mr. McGovern: When the hon. Member talks about what Russia has done, is he against acts of aggression on principle or is it a question of who has committed the act of aggression whether it is justified or not?

Mr. Lipson: Everybody must be opposed to acts of aggression on principle, but we are dealing with a practical problem. That is realised by the British Government, because in spite of the act of aggression it is apparently prepared to maintain normal relations with Russia and even to conclude a treaty with her. What we have to ask ourselves is this: Are we more likely to get the new world which we have been promised as a result of a long and bitter war or are we more likely to build it up now before the war has aroused feelings of bitterness and hatred, and caused a great deal of destruction? I re-read recently the chapter in H. A. L. Fisher's book on the Treaty of Versailles, and I could not help noticing how in the last war so much was said that is being said again to-day. We were then promised a new world. I am rather sceptical about a new world coming out of a world war, because it always seems to me that this new world is postponed to the future. Now, when we have an opportunity of building up a new world under better conditions we are not prepared to do it.
I want to express the hope that we do at least keep the door open and see whether it is possible to bridge the gulf between Germany and ourselves. It is a duty we owe to our own people to state quite clearly on what terms we are prepared to talk, and if not why the war must continue. It is a duty we owe to the neutrals, because we have to realise from what has happened recently that if the war goes on most of the small nations of the world will inevitably lose their independence and will be ruined economically. If we really want to make an appeal to the German people which is likely to be effective we shall do it best if we tell them quite clearly on what terms we are prepared to talk about peace. In conclusion may I say that, as I see it, mankind has once more a chance of saving itself from destruction? Let us not have it on our conscience that we did not make the

most of this opportunity. Let us ask ourselves whether this is an opportunity, and if we can convince ourselves that it is, let us see that it is so used.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: I am sure that there are many hon. Members who appreciate the grave and weighty words of the last speaker. There is in all parts of the House not that complete unanimity of opinion regarding the war which was perhaps expressed a few weeks ago. I am certain that there are stirrings of conscience and soul in a large number of people as to exactly where we are going and as to the methods which we are taking to achieve our end. When, for instance, an hon. Member referred to the necessity for keeping the purpose of victory before us there were, I am sure, many who felt that if that was the only purpose of the war the sooner the war is wound up the better. We have had too many wars waged solely for victory, and hon. Members will at least now realise that the great majority of the people of this land will not support a war which is made merely for victory. At the very best they must be convinced that war is waged for some moral purpose, and it is only faith in that moral purpose which can secure real safety for the people of this country. The speeches of the Prime Minister and of the Leader of the Opposition really were directed to keeping the door open open. Both speeches in effect invited the German Government to prove its sincerity in its desire for peace by giving some indication that it means what it says. Most earnestly I would press that Herr Hitler will consider these statements, seriously and soberly made, and that before it is too late he will appreciate the tremendous responsibility that rests upon his shoulders at the present time. He has a great responsibility which, if he cares to exercise it, will bring to him the gratitude of millions of people in Germany and elsewhere.
It is not too late for such a miracle to take place. I know that there are many who are sceptical of miracles and especially of a miracle of that kind, but I believe the resources of human nature are such that even such a miracle, although improbable, is at least possible. Even though we may be sceptical of the possibility of such a miracle it does not


prevent us asking ourselves what resources we ourselves can still tap in order to create peace. When we speak of the neurotic brutality associated with the Nazi regime it is imperative, if we are to avoid shallow emotionalism, to ask ourselves how that neurotic brutality came into existence, and if we examine the situation honestly we shall be insincere if we merely say that Herr Hitler is the sole cause of the present situation. We know that the pathological condition which seems to be incarnate in Herr Hitler and his supporters grew out of circumstances, economical and psychological, for which we have, in a greater or less degree, a measure of responsibility.
We tend in these days to forget the criticism that was made of the treatment of the German nation before Herr Hitler rose to power. In my estimation, he would not have had the power he had, and still has, if we had more fully exercised our moral responsibility towards the German people during the 15 years following the war. We tend to forget that now. I am afraid it is customary for human nature thus to try to forget its own responsibility and to seize some scapegoat and make it the excuse for evading such responsibility. In the Boer War, it was President Kruger who became the pivot of our hatred and hostility, and in the Great War it was the Kaiser. In this war, it is Herr Hitler. I do not deny that that man has a very great responsibility, but again, I say that we should not fool ourselves into imagining that merely by obtaining his removal we shall solve the problem of removing the causes which led to his rising to power.
In one of the rooms of the House, somebody pinned on the wall a cartoon from an evening paper. In that cartoon there were three persons—a blackshirt, a redshirt, and a pinkshirt. They were pleading with the Prime Minister to be "kind to Adolf." In contrast with that, in the background, there was the figure of Adolf, a revolver in his hand, and the prostrate corpses of Czecho-Slovakia, Poland and Austria at his feet. The intention of the cartoon, of course, was satirically to convey the idea that any talk of peace by negotiations was merely sentimental nonsense, simply trying to be

kind to a murderer, and that our job was to punish him first. That is all very well, but I could not help remembering similar cartoons about the Kaiser in the last war. I ask hon. Members to realise that when we personify the evil that is now being attacked in the person of Herr Hitler, and when we are urged to carry on the war to teach him a lesson, it is not Hitler that matters twopence. Quite possibly he will slip out of the backdoor into Holland, or elsewhere, in the same way as his predecessor.
What really matters is that in the process of this punishment of Hitler we are going to subject to mutilation, torture and agony millions of innocent human beings in all countries. I earnestly plead that we should rid ourselves of this illusion by which so many people are misled into imagining that all we are concerned with is in teaching Hitler a lesson. Let us not bother so much about him, but rather think of the conditions which gave rise to him and of the victims, not merely of Hitler, but also of the international rivalries, antagonisms and exploitation, in which we have played our part in some measure in the past. In the Western world there has existed and still exists, unfortunately, false assumptions and spurious values respecting human life. Can we really be certain that, when we plead with the German people to give up their present Nazi regime and co-operate freely with the democracies, we ourselves, in holding up our hands in horror and condemnation, have hands that are really clean?
I suggest that we know within ourselves that what we are now seeing in Europe is the climax of processes in which we have all more or less taken a part, and which many still endorse. That is why I have detected in many of those who have expressed a conviction that the war must be pursued a certain dim and melancholy appreciation of the fact that the last war and those who died in it have been betrayed. When we turn to the past and remember the brave words that were spoken, the splendid affirmations that were made, and then recollect the blind folly and spiteful stupidity that ran on after the war was ended, it is small wonder that even behind the minds of those who support this war, there is often this melancholy and sometimes bitter


cynicism, which gnaws at our heart and soul. That is why we no longer talk about a war to end war, as on the last occasion. I am not certain how we should designate this war. The last war was the Great War—are we to call this the greater war, the greatest war, or the not-so-great war? We do not call it a war to end wars. It is simply a war to end Hitlerism, which in itself is a sorry reflection on our sanity and civilisation; for what it really means is that we are now taking part in a war to clear away a by-product of the last war. It is small wonder that so many people ask why crime shall bring crime for ever, and whether we have any real assurance and guarantee that this war will end in a different way from the Great War.
I must confess that I am troubled in my mind when I hear hon. Members explain that the Versailles Treaty and its aftermath were the best that could have come out of the prevailing mood of the, last war, and that when men and women had endured four years of carnage, suffering, and tension, one could not expect them to have foresight, sanity, balance, charity and those other qualities that go to make a real peace. If that be so, if war produces a mood which makes a decent peace impossible, what should be said then of another war, the war in which we now are? I suggest that before it is too late we should reflect more seriously on the psychological conditions that war creates, and realise that once they are created, one cannot expect that kind of peace which we may conceivably still secure while the volcanic resources of human nature have not yet been fully allowed to break through.
Yet, however terrible may be the consequences of war, I agree that we cannot make a peace merely through cowardice or spiritual indolence. It is no good going to the blackmailer and granting him concessions in the hope that he will no longer blackmail. We have to recognise there are times when evil seems to be incarnate in human nature, and that no matter how many concessions may be made, incarnate evil has imposed its will, time and again in history, on individuals and communities. Socrates stood for truth, and no matter how much his colleagues may have pleaded for a recognition of his truth, the blind men of his day sent him to his death. Perhaps it is part of the

strange and pathetic travail of human life that now and again such a crucifixion of truth by the blind generation in which it lives must take place.
Yet, I suggest that there are more ways than one of resisting evil things. In the last resort, we do not rely upon arms to resist evil. Poland to-day has its arms broken, but we are saying that Poland shall live again. It will live again because of that imperishable thing we call the human spirit, which cannot be destroyed. In the last war, if we had been defeated, together with our ally, France, we should still have said that the truth would prevail. Only a recognition of that can give the secret of human life, and I think that at long last it may be that human life will recognise that those deepest resources of human nature are the only weapons that can avail against all the armoury of hell. I would that some community should one day arise which will stake its whole existence on throwing away its arms and trusting to those spiritual resources to which I have referred. That day has not yet arrived and if hon. Members smile, may I retort by saying that actually we are appealing now to the youth of this land on the moral basis that even though they lose their lives, it is worth while for the sake of freedom.
Do not let us smile sardonically at what, after all, is the basis of the faith which most of us hold. There are those who rely on moral resources and believe that they alone in the end triumph, and there are those who believe, on the other hand, that in certain circumstances weapons must be used. I believe that both may unite in certain respects. We should try, for instance, to reach the minds of the German people. Let us seek to do so by deeds as well as by words. Do not raise the bogy that it is impossible to get through to the German people. We can do so in the end if we are willing to exercise patience. If we cannot, what hope is there for the future of mankind?
Further, we ought to put our own house in order. Reference has been made to India. If the Government could say to the Indian peoples, "We believe so deeply in democracy that we are prepared to implement democracy in the central government of India in the near future," I believe that would do more to re-establish democracy as a vibrant and supreme


fact in the world than all the arms that we have used in the past. We should also state distinctly the sort of world which we are trying to create and the sacrifice which we are prepared to make. It is no good merely saying to the German people that they have committed iniquity. They will reply by asking us to indicate our belief in an alternative. Unless we are prepared to make deep sacrifices for this new world and to repudiate the processes by which men and nations have sought to exploit and dominate each other, then all our condemnation of the German people will be in vain because they will suspect that it is not consistent and genuine.
I ask the Prime Minister and all Members to realise that human beings in Germany are fundamentally no different from ourselves. There are differences of course of history, education and language, and there is to-day this vicious crust of Hitlerism. But deep in the human nature of the German people there are evil and good things just as there are in the human nature of our own people. These evil things may have come out in Germany but they are also potential among ourselves and if we had been in the same position as the German people those evil things might, by now, also be supreme among us. I believe that the people of this country and the workers in particular should make it their business to distinguish between the evil in Germany as it is, and the mass of the working men and women of that country. We should do our utmost to gain a response from the working-class people of Germany so that we may be able at last, even at some risk and with some sacrifice, to create those conditions in which Hitlerism and similar diseases will no longer be possible.

7.54 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I recognise that the House is weary and I do not propose to detain hon. Members for long. Like other speakers to-night I find myself in the unusual position of being able to agree with nearly everything the Prime Minister has said. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman to-night has expressed views which, for two or three years past, my hon. Friends and I have been expressing in vain. Why, then, it may be asked, should I desire to add anything to what the right hon. Gentleman has said and why should I

feel, as I do, a certain sense of dissatisfaction? I do not intend to appeal to the House on the high moral grounds which have been stated by several speakers. The points which are in my mind are mainly strategical or technical doubts. It is recognised that in every war both sides manoeuvre for positions strategically and also diplomatically. Have we not something to learn from Herr Hitler in the art of diplomatic manoeuvre? Supposing that the excellent and admirable sentiments which the Prime Minister expressed—in rather general and abstract terms—could be got across to the working-people of Germany, would it help to encourage the forces among those people whom we want to get on our side?
I have another doubt. If everything which the Prime Minister said to-day could be read, as no doubt it will, by the greater part of the working-people here, will it dispossess them of the doubt which is in their minds to-day and of which I see evidence day by day in my own post-bag and in contact with people throughout the country? It is not so much a doubt about what we are fighting for. The people have their own answer to that. They say that it is to do away with Hitlerism. They say we must make a stand against Hitler somewhere. But the doubt which is worrying them is: Has every possible opportunity been taken, has every chance, even, if only a slender chance, been availed of to avert this horrible and terrible business? The aims stated to-day by the right hon. Gentleman were stated last week in the House of Lords by Lord Halifax. They were mostly negative in the sense that it was said that we could not accept Herr Hitler's word and that we could not accept any peace that was not honourable and was not likely to lead to security. There is hardly any difference of opinion about that. I believe very few sets of people—except those who support a section of opinion represented far in excess of its numbers in the speeches to-day, and that is the absolute pacifists—who believe that such terms of peace as were contemplated in that incoherent and arrogant speech of Herr Hitler's, could possibly be accepted with safety or honour. They are impossible terms.
What is moving people's minds is whether those are his last terms, and


whether there is any possibility that we are throwing away a chance that, by negotiating on conditions, we might be able to achieve an honourable and safe peace? I believe it is a small chance. I believe the chances are that we shall have to do this horrible thing and fight this war to a finish. If so, God help us to fight it to a speedy and victorious finish, but we are lessening our own chance if we allow that doubt to remain in the minds of the people of this country —"Has everything been done; could it have been stopped?" I do not think the kind of speech we heard from the Prime Minister is going to solve that doubt.
What are the objections to setting out —not completely, because we cannot do that at the beginning of a war—the elemental conditions of the kind of peace which we should be willing to negotiate? I do not wish to elaborate them, but I suppose they are briefly these—independence and freedom for the Poles—not necessarily within their pre-war boundaries but independence and freedom for the Polish people—and independence and freedom for the Czech people. Do not let anybody in this House forget that we are under an obligation to the Czechs just as great as our obligation to the Poles. In both cases we gave a guarantee which we were not able to fulfil.

Mrs. Tate: We never gave a guarantee in the case of the Czechs.

Miss Rathbone: I did not think it would be necessary to remind the House that we asked the Czechs to give up the Sudetenland. We hoped that we were asking them to make a sacrifice by which they would buy European peace, and we gave in exchange a guarantee of their frontiers. We were not able to implement that guarantee, but it was just as sacred as the guarantee to Poland. I hope that whoever speaks from the Front Bench will find an opportunity of admitting that that is so. It was an unimplemented guarantee, and our chance of fulfilling it is now winning the war or winning honourable terms of peace without war. Thirdly, disarmament. I do not attach much value to Herr Hitler's offer that he is willing to discuss disarmament, questions of currency and economic questions. I think he meant it as cheese to bait the trap. So it ought to be part of

the terms that they must lead to some form of international disarmament, coupled with international inspection of armaments to see that the terms are carried out. They must lead to a more effective protection for minorities, racial and religious, including the Jewish people, and they must lead to the freeing of commerce from its present bonds so that they may lead to higher standards of life for the people, but, above all, they must lead to the setting up of a real international machinery for the prevention of aggression.
Those, in very crude terms, are the kind of elementary conditions on which we ought to be able to discuss peace and to enter into negotiations. What are the difficulties about setting out our terms in these positive ways, and not merely in the negative phraseology which has been mainly used by the Prime Minister? The two objections that one always hears raised, are, first of all, that such terms would not be accepted now. As to that, I would say probably not, but, after all, if we and the French intend to fight this fight to a finish, if we are prepared to take up the uncompromising attitude they have taken up to-day, they must have some reasons for it. It must be because they believe that Germany cannot win a long war. Their belief must be based on strategical or economic grounds, 01 upon their knowledge of what is happening inside Germany. But on whatever grounds it is based, those grounds must be known to Herr Hitler and the rulers of Germany. Why should he suppose that those preposterous terms put forward by Herr Hitler are his last words? Are we quite certain that, if we give him some kind of ladder to climb down by, we should not in the long run achieve an honourable and secure peace without war? It is a chance in 1oo if you like, but when the lives of millions are at stake a chance in 100 is worth taking, and what should we lose by taking it?
The second objection is this. Suppose those terms were granted, they would be worth nothing because they would depend on the word of Herr Hitler. Of course they would be worth nothing if they depended on his word, but would they? If they were secured terms they would not, for two reasons. First of all, nearly all Herr Hitler's previous triumphs have been gained because he has


succeeded in winning without war, because he has been a successful aggressor. The very fact that he had to negotiate on the terms on which we should ask him to negotiate would show that that career of successful aggression was ended. It would shatter his reputation for being the unvanquished dominator of Europe. Secondly, the terms of peace would not even rest mainly upon the signatories of the peace, who would be the belligerents on both sides. They would rest on the national machinery which we set up. Several years ago, if only Ministers had been willing to listen to us, we had a real chance of turning the League of Nations into an effective machinery for resisting aggression. The small countries are now hastening to assure us that they want nothing but to maintain their neutrality. Even after the Abyssinian fiasco it was those small neutral countries which resented any attempt to emasculate Article 16 of the Covenant. It was only one experience after another—Abyssinia, Spain, Austria, and Czecho-Slovakia— that led them to the conclusion that the great Powers were all untrustworthy and that their only safety was in maintaining their neutrality. But supposing, after having shown too late, but still better late than never, that we and France were prepared to fight for honour and freedom, and supposing that we had succeeded in showing that we had made so good a beginning that we had brought the aggressor countries to terms, would not there be a real chance of constructing a peace front, a kind of collective security that was worth having, whether it was built on the old League or whether it succeeded in the bigger ideal of the abolition of national sovereignty? The kind of terms that we could get would be terms guaranteed not only by the signatures of the signatories but by the kind of machinery which the terms would themselves set up.
That is the case as I see it. The first step would be to state our terms. If those terms are contemptuously rejected by Herr Hitler, let us go on. If we could once get it into the hearts not only of our own people but of the people of Germany that we had offered those reasonable, honourable terms, terms which offered them not a destroyed

Germany, but a better, happier, more prosperous Germany than they have now, a Germany in which they had no longer to choose between guns and butter, I believe that in any case, even if the terms were refused, to have had them put forward, to have made them known to the people of Germany would be in itself a step towards victory and it would have this advantage, that it would do away with the fear that haunts me that, as this war goes on, our people, who have shown a splendid spirit, who are not panicky, who are not despairing as the hardships of the war weigh upon them, may become disgruntled and doubting and may ask themselves more and more every day the question which even now they are beginning to ask—Was this war really necessary? Did our Government, which showed itself originally so completely indifferent to the fate of other nations and so unwilling to stand up against the aggressor, do everything possible to avoid this horrible necessity, when they really got us into a war, of fighting it to the bitter end? The day may come when right hon. Gentlemen sitting on their own front bench may ask themselves that question in their hearts. It was said of the late Lord Grey after the beginning of the last war that he used to say to himself night after night: "Is there anything that I could have done to stop it?"The day may come when you will ask yourselves the same question. Is there one chance in a million that a peace by negotiation, which is honourable and secure, could be won by holding out a sort of ladder between ourselves and Germany?

8.10 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: The hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) started by telling us that for the first time in her experience she had approved a speech by the Prime Minister, but it was difficult to appreciate that fact in listening to her speech. I would ask any of those hon. Members who have put forward theories to-day, and who spoke last night in this House of the necessity for the right kind of propaganda, to remember a little the mentality of the German people. I am as desirous as anyone in the world that we should be able to avoid war, and I would make any sacrifice if this hideous war could end, but I am convinced that the one thing that would be absolutely fatal, not only for


Herr Hitler, but for the German people, would be for us to make the approach and for us to go begging with terms at this moment. In the Prime Minister's magnificent speech to-day, he stated quite clearly that we were not fighting a war merely to win a victory or to impose any conditions on any other people, but that we were fighting in order that all the little nations of the world might live in peace and freedom. The German people would not understand an approach on our part at this moment as anything else but a terror of attack.

Miss Rathbone: Is the hon. Lady quite sure of that, if some elementary conditions such as the freedom and independence of Poland and the Czechs were specified?

Mrs. Tate: My personal belief is that Herr Hitler would not consider such terms, and I may be wrong, but I am sure that the German people would misunderstand such an approach. I think I have a right to claim some small knowledge of the psychology of the German people. I am, after all, the only Member in this House, and the only person in this country, who has ever been able to get two people out of a German concentration camp, and, when all is said and done, I did it without a single introduction from this country and without help from any living human being. I did it by meeting, without former knowledge or without having seen him before, one of the people who at that time was in close connection with Herr Hitler, and bamboozling him into believing that it would be good propaganda for Germany to release those people. I, therefore, say that I have quite as much knowledge as any hon. Member here of the psychology of the German people and of the right approach to make to them. When I got those people out of the concentration camp, I made the Germans pay for us all to come home in a Junker aeroplane, and I made them send Prince Von Bismarck to meet us at Croydon.
I am absolutely convinced that if Herr Hitler has the smallest wish for peace there could be no greater opportunity than the speech made by the Prime Minister to-day. It left every door open, if Herr Hitler has any desire whatsoever to make peace. But if we were to go and say to the German people, "Do make peace; these are our terms," they would understand it in one way only.

They would understand it as a defeatist attitude on our part. A great deal has been said of the mistakes made at Versailles and of the tragedy of the attitude of the Versailles Treaty. All that, I admit, but far less has been said of one mistake which was made previous to the Treaty of Versailles, and which has been frequently acknowledged, and that is the fact that before we finished the war we should have been very well advised to march into Berlin. [Laughter.]The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) can laugh himself sick, and I am glad that he can laugh. After all that he has said in this House in defence of Russia, this must be a very happy moment for him, and I am glad that he can have a little opportunity of laughing. The hon. Lady said that the reason why Herr Hitler had been so triumphant up to date was that he had always been able to commit acts of aggression without having to fight. Does she not think that to-day he is priding himself on a very successful victory in Poland? Is he any less likely to be triumphant to-day than he was before? I must say that one remark by the hon. Lady filled me with absolute horror. She said that the Prime Minister could only have made the speech he did make because he had information which made him quite certain that we should be victorious.

Miss Rathbone: I did not say that. I merely uttered the platitude that the Government clearly think that we are going to win, or they would not fight. They would indeed be criminal to waste millions of lives believing that the result would be that there would be a peace dictated to us by Germany.

Mrs. Tate: I am very sorry if the hon. Lady thinks that any country that fights, not being completely certain of victory, is criminal, and I think the hon. Lady must find it rather difficult to understand why the Poles defended Warsaw, but I am thankful that I do not believe that that is the spirit of everyone in this country. I believe that there are people in this country who would fight for what they believe to be their land and those they love even if they were not completely convinced of victory. I pray and hope that we shall be victorious, and I think we shall be victorious far more certainly if we make no further efforts and if the Prime Ministers speech goes


out, as I pray it will, and the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, as the unalterable opinion of this country. I believe that it represents the feelings and the really sincere wishes of the vast majority of the people of this country. Hon. Members have spoken about calling conferences. Conferences between whom? Conferences guaranteed by whom? Such nations represent nothing but the vaguest meanderings of a few intellectuals who have very little touch with realities.

Mr. A. Edwards: The hon. Lady's speech is based, she says, on a knowledge of the psychology of the German people. Might it not be possible, as Hitler's life is entirely dependent on the good faith of Stalin, that Hitler would be willing to listen to proposals he would have scorned earlier?

Mrs. Tate: The words with which the Prime Minister terminated his speech gave Herr Hitler every possible opportunity of setting forth reasonable terms if he had the smallest wish to do so, and I believe that the people of this country will thank God, as I do, for the speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Sloan: The speech of the Prime Minister filled me with dismay. It was like the speech of a victor, the speech of a man who knew that he had Hitler exactly where he wanted him and who was prepared to be a dictator to Germany. I hope that I am wrong and that there is at least a glimmer of hope in the speech, and that the door is not entirely locked, barred and bolted against the reasonable discussion of peace with the German people. It is deplorable that the Prime Minister should state so emphatically that we will select the people with whom we shall discuss peace. We know that Hitler speaks as head of the German Government and is the leader of the German nation. We may not like it. I am sure that we do not like Hitler, but there are Members on this side of the House who do not like the Leader of the British nation. The slogan for many months past, as far as I have been able to learn, in the House and the country has been "Chamberlain must go." Hitler, after all, has made a sort of peace offer. No one in the House suggests that

it is satisfactory, but surely it is a basis for discussion. We have to open the discussion some time.
The Government and this House owe it to the nation that any opportunity of reaching peace should not be lost. We owe it to the millions of youths who are not yet in the danger zone. The guns are firing, but they are not yet under fire. The dogs of war are barking, but have not yet been let loose. Tears have not yet been shed and grey hairs have not yet been brought in sorrow to the grave. Because we have not yet made those colossal losses on the front, hearts are not yet broken. In his book, "The World Crisis" the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty drew a picture showing how for three years the trained armies of Germany and France were thrust upon each other, grappled fiercely, broke apart for a period, endeavoured to outflank each other, closed again in desperate conflict, and broke apart once more. Then from the Alps to the sea they lay gasping and glaring at each other, not knowing what to do, neither strong enough to overcome the other and neither possessing the superior means required for a successful offensive. That was written 10 years after the war, after the right hon. Gentleman had time to consider all the aspects of it. Instead of having these conditions behind us at the present moment, we have them in front of us probably in a more accentuated form, because it is admitted that the defensive measures are so complete to-day that what was done in three years in the last war may take eight or nine years in this.
We deprecate in the strongest possible manner the idea that peace overtures are dangerous. That idea appears to have been running through all the speeches from the other side to-day, and we have been told that we should not discuss peace until the war has proceeded for a certain time. We should discuss peace before we have tested the machinery of war and before the enormous lists of casualties begin to come in. Hitler's speech has had a bad Press in this country, as could be seen by the newspaper posters in the streets. They bore such slogans as "Peace move condemned in advance," "Peace move strangled at birth," and "Peace efforts stillborn." Before we had an oppor-


tunity of hearing the statement of the Prime Minister as to the Government's reaction to Hitler's offer, the jingo Press had made their stand and had permeated public opinion with the way it should react. We are told that the Russian action does not alter the position, but I suggest that it makes a tremendous difference to it. Instead of France and this country having the certainty of one enemy to fight in the West, and instead of Germany being opposed by an enemy on each front, she now has on her eastern border at least a friend, who might easily become a potential enemy to us. When the war began it was expected that Germany would be fighting alone. Hitler said, "I fight alone," and at that period he had enemies on the east and the west. The speedy subjugation of Poland has altered that, and Germany has now at least a friend on her eastern border. Even if Russia gives Germany no military assistance, it surely means something that she is able to supply her with raw materials necessary to carry on the war.
When Russia was expected to come in with what was known as the peace front, she was a great country and had enormous resources with which she could supply us. We were told that her coal production had increased from 29,000,000 tons in 1913 to 120,000,000 tons in 1937, her supplies of pig iron from 4,000,000 tons to 15,000,000 tons in the same period, and her steel from 4,000,000 tons to 18,000,000 tons. Her textiles had also increased and the food production of Russia, we were told, was enormous. Now we are told that Russia is of no use at all and can render no assistance to Germany, and yet although Russia has so few commodities to supply it is interesting to note that only yesterday we signed a trade agreement with her under which we are to get timber in exchange for rubber and tin. I would ask the Government to remember that Germany is in dire need of rubber and tin, so there is the possibility that we are now going to send commodities to Russia which will be immediately transferred to Germany. My time is up now, because I have to catch a train, and I would only say once more that I hope this peace offer will not be lightly turned down. The people in the country are asking for peace, millions of them, and the Government are making a great mistake if they think they have the unanimous opinion of the people behind

them. Hon. Members know that they are getting letters by the hundreds, especially from the mothers of this country, asking that something should be done to stop things before the fearful carnage commences. [An HON. MEMBER:"NO."] I will show you the letters. Therefore, I earnestly hope that if there is a ray of hope in the Prime Minister's speech everything possible will be done to bring an honourable peace before this frightful carnage commences.

8.32 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I wish to mention two points which have not yet been made. I do not propose to draw up a new outline of the heaven upon earth which many speakers have attempted to portray. There is one point which must be considered in connection with any suggestion that we can treat Herr Hitler as a man of perfectly sound mentality. I want to put a point of view which I think is very general and, I believe, has very sound foundations. I have heard it discussed a good deal by psychologists. One man of the very highest reputation, who was speaking at second hand—certainly not at first hand, but on very good second-hand information—and speaking quite quietly, and without any view to effect, said to me clearly, "I have no doubt that that man is a paranoiac." Members may not know what a paranoiac is, but most of the younger generation, who read modern novels, know all about psychology and know what a paranoiac is. He is a man who, while he is outwardly and to all appearances of sound mind and cannot be certified as otherwise, is a man who by certain processes known to psycho-analysts and psychologists is on his way to being at least unbalanced, and may eventually go into the full state of being certified as of unsound mind. It seems to me quite clear, from the series of incidents that have occurred, that it is perfectly possible for a man in that position to give genuine undertakings at one time and afterwards to break them flagrantly and openly, as has been the case. I believe, anyhow, that it is a sound theory, and it is recognised as being an acknowledged fact by a very large number of people throughout the world, not the least number of them being in Germany.
If that is the case let us recognise how much it alters our view of the situation and our attitude to the German people.


I am one of those who have had the good fortune to live in a German family. At one time I was able to speak German very well, and though I certainly cannot do so now I understand the mentality of the German people as well, I believe, as do most people in this House. Also, I am one of those who wish sincerely to be friends with the German people, as I believe most of them wish to be friends with us. But what is the position? Herr Hitler came forward and raised the people of Germany from a position in which they were "down and out" to a position of prosperity, in which, in general, the working classes feel that they have had an absolutely fair and square deal. The nation as a whole feels that it can now look the world in the face again. Herr Hitler has been worshipped, as we all know, raised to the position almost of a deity, anyhow a hero of the highest order, and the great mass of the German people appreciate him and will follow him wherever he leads, especially as he has always got his way without war.
What is the position when a man like that becomes unbalanced? History affords many instances of cases in which a man of wonderful talents has gradually lost his sense of control and of balance, and yet all those around him have had to treat him as still normal. They cannot throw him over, they are bound to him, and yet they must be feeling all the time, "How can we get out of this mess he has got us into without throwing him over, seeing the position he holds among the German people?" I only throw out that idea because it seems to me that it makes it difficult for us to say that the peace we want depends upon overthrowing Hitler.
The Prime Minister, in the great speech he gave us to-day, has shown clearly that the way out is to overthrow Hitlerism, in other words, this constant unreliability of public statements in international dealings. But does it mean, if my analysis of the situation is correct, that there is no desire or intention on the part of the German people or of the German army to fight with us, and that they are doing all they can to restrain the forces that are making for active war against us? It seems to me that the only way to meet the situation is the one that seemed to be suggested by the Prime Minister

and by the operation of events at the present moment. The way to deal with a man of that mentality is to show strength and determination, to take a clear, sound, sensible line and to show that we are determined to carry through with it. The spirit of strength and determination will give him—or those around him—the opportunity of meeting our case and withdrawing from the impossible position taken up. By taking up a strong position, both as regards our forces and economic warfare, we are helping the change to take place in Germany.
I do not want to develop this aspect of the matter any more at this stage; I only ask that the position should be recognised and thought out by those who are trying to discover the possibilities of a solution of the difficulties in Europe. Whatever happens we must stick to our determination to show no intention of giving way. In that matter I entirely disagree with one or two of those who have spoken this evening. I think the great point about the Prime Minister's speech was that he left things open to individual interpretation: that we laid down a strong and definite line and now matters have to solve themselves without our defining things too closely, because definitions introduce innumerable difficulties.
One other point should be made. I receive a very large number of letters in my constituency from people who are genuinely and conscientiously feeling that it is not right in any circumstances to go to war. I was speaking to-day with a Member of this House who is a keen supporter of the Peace Pledge Union. They feel strongly that, whatever cast: we may have against an aggressor, we must not go to war. They say, "It is laid down in our religion that you must not, in any case, take up the sword." I do not want to trespass upon theology in this House, but it may be useful to give one particular reference. The one text that is introduced against us is:
He that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword.
That was said with reference to a particular tragedy before the Crucifixion. I should like hon. Members to look up another reference in the 22nd Chapter of Luke. I had to look it up specially the other day in order to reply to a correspondent. You see there that the Master himself said to a disciple:


He that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword let him sell his garment, and buy one.
A little later we read that the disciple said to him:
Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them. It is enough.
When one of the disciples drew his sword, Jesus told him that it was not yet time to use the sword and that he must put it up in his sheath. This disciple was one who had lived for three years with the Master and apparently, during that time, he got the idea that he was to wear the sword. Why? I have not the least doubt that it was a part of the attire of every gentleman or of every man's uniform to wear a sword. There were no police in those days and there were highwaymen and brigands. Everybody had to be prepared to defend himself.
To those who say, as my colleague said in this House: "I cannot conceive the Master taking part in a war," I reply: "Remember that the most beautiful example of Christian principle is that of the Good Samaritan. Suppose that Good Samaritan had come on the scene an hour earlier; are we to be taught that the good Samaritan would have stood by while the robber proceeded to attack the poor traveller, strip him and leave him naked and half dead? Of course not. He would have been expected to hold his own against him." That means physical force, and that is the basis of the proper reply to those who say that we must have peace at any price. Peace at any price is as inconceivable to a Christian as it is to any decent man in this House.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member in his interesting exegetical remarks, but I would like to comment upon one very important point which he made in his speech. He gave an explanation of the great hold that Herr Hitler has upon a large number of his fellow countrymen and of the debt that many of them feel they owe him for the self-respect which they are able to feel as Germans; and also of the obligation that many feel for the effort of his government in getting rid of unemployment—although the conditions of employment in Germany are far from being as rosy as someone reading the OFFICIAL

REPORT to-morrow might think they are, from the speech of the hon. Member. We cannot expect a nation to desert its leader at the demand of another nation. If we were told by German leaders that we had to get rid of our Prime Minister and his principal colleagues, that would be the most effective way of rallying to them the loyalty of the whole of this nation. The right hon. Gentleman the Dominions Secretary has no doubt benefited by the public attack made by German leaders upon him, as have some of his colleagues.
Therefore, we ought not to try to attain the object that we have in view by methods which demand of the German people that they should depose their leader. I do not believe that that is the demand of the Prime Minister. As I look back upon that very remarkable speech which we heard this afternoon, phrased in such dignified and calm language, I feel that it is significant that, after six weeks of war, there was no word of hatred or of ill-will in it towards the German people. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that it is not part of the object of this country that there should be anything in the nature of a vindictive peace, and that he wanted to see living room for the German people, provided that that involved living room for other and smaller peoples too. It is a very great thing that that should be said at such a time and that the German people should know it. It is good that the right hon. Gentleman should have made it clear that he looks forward to a negotiated peace. Again and again Herr Hitler has rallied public opinion to him in Germany by emphasising the evil of what he calls the diktat,or the dictated peace of Versailles. That has rallied German patriotism to his support and he has used it quite recently, since the outbreak of war. It is most important, therefore, that Germany should know that it is not the intention of this country to have another dictated peace.
I hope that the Prime Minister will make it even more clear than he has done this afternoon that, the right guarantees being given, we should welcome the opportunity of a conference that would provide, not a truce, but a real settlement for Europe. He has said that he did not wish the war to go on for one unnecessary day, and I am sure that that is unanimously the wish of the people of this country. We want a peace that will


be a real peace and that will be made on just conditions. It should be possible for the Prime Minister to make more clear, without going into unnecessary details, the nature of the guarantees that he requires, whether it be the withdrawal of German troops from Poland or other preliminaries, and whether they are to be, as they must be, I should think, accompanied by some clear statement that any peace worthy of the name must involve a free Czecho-Slovakia and a free Polish nation. We should make it clear that we welcome the idea of neutral nations coming in with the nations that are at present engaged in this war, in order to make peace, and especially that we should welcome the co-operation for this purpose of the United States of America. That is something that we can ask our Government to make clear to the world, to neutral nations and to the people of Germany.
It is worth while to note in the speech of Herr Hitler that this remarkable man, who has rejected the idea of conference repeatedly when it has been pressed upon him by the persistent efforts of the British Government right up to the outbreak of war, and in the first days of the war, has now himself proposed a conference. Surely, he must, in doing that, either wish to throw upon his opponents the responsibility for rejecting something that is in the neutral countries believed to be right—in which case, we must not fall in with his aim—or, and I hope that this is it, he knows that his people are longing for peace and he wants to have the credit for leadership in that direction. I do not think we ought to allow the leaders of the dictatorships to have the credit for initiative again and again. We ought sometimes ourselves to put forward proposals that will appeal to the hearts and minds of neutral countries and of the people of Germany themselves. We should not have a proposal of this kind coming from the German Chancellor unless there were very good reasons that make him desire peace. He knows that his people are not, as one hon. Member to-day mistakenly said, intoxicated with victory. His people want peace. What thoughtful citizens of Europe could want a three-years' war, and all that it entails?
It may be that one of these days in the immediate future we shall find our-

selves at a turning point in human history. If we take the turn that leads to that three years' war it means, in all probability, the ruin of Western civilisation. Think of the economic effect, the utter impoverishment of the great countries of Europe; think of the effect on human life, of the generation of fine men who will be taken away, the leaders of the years that are coming robbed from the nations that are to be. With Europe deprived of all that leadership and all that service, as it would be, robbed of its financial resources, with its capitals in ruins, its countryside made desolate, that Europe will be no place for the birth of that glorious new world of which we have had a vision put before us to-night. You will not get the new world that we want to see built on a foundation of hatred and ruin and bankruptcy. That is what would be left by this three years' war.
We must do our utmost to get the way made clear for an honourable peace, not only for this country, but for all the countries of the world. That will open out hope for the future, because the devotion and sacrifice that is now being put by so many brave men into the service of their country in the Army, Navy and Air Force could be given in an even better cause without loss or suffering to any nation being involved. We cannot rebuild Poland if Europe is ruined and our finances have gone. We can, together with Germany, if we can get an honourable peace, not only help in the rebuilding of Poland, but help in the reconstruction of economic life throughout Europe; and it would be worth while making sacrifices in such a cause. As we go out to-night from the darkened corridors of this House into the greater darkness of the street without, we must all feel that the darkness that is about us is symbolic of the gloom and night that is falling upon our civilisation if this war goes on and on. But the light is there behind curtain and shutter, it is there, being kept out from the streets that need it, and it is so in the lives of men. The light of wisdom and insight, of reason, of human fellowship is there in the hearts of men, and we have to turn it on to-day to get rid of this darkness, which means death to our civilisation; to bring us back to the way of peace.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: I will not at this hour, when the House is somewhat weary of debate, inflict upon it the speech I had intended to make at this time, but there are two points I would like to make, and I would also like to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretray of State for Dominion Affairs, who may be replying to the Debate.

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Eden): indicated dissent.

Mr. Beaumont: Then I will put the question in the hope that someone may answer it in the very near future. I want to repudiate a statement that was made on these benches and one which, if spread abroad, may be the subject of grave misgiving. An hon. Member who has now left the Chamber made the statement that he was the recipient of a large number of letters asking that the war should be stopped. Speaking personally from the knowledge of my own constituency, I have not received a single letter since the war started. There are some people who are under a misapprehension, because we have not boys and youths and men and women going up and down the streets waving flags and singing patriotic songs, that there is no determination behind this war. There are a number of people who mistake hysteria for enthusiasm. We had in 1914 a sort of hysteria, added to which was a recruiting campaign in which we had great masses of people brought together, and who, by speeches of an inflammatory character were induced to enlist, and there was much shouting and beating of the drum. What is now much more significant is that without this hysteria and enthusiasm there is a grim determination of the people which is more definite and more certain and which will be more permanent. The people, deploring the danger that is coming to this country and to the world, are saying that this has to be stopped, and when they say that this has to be stopped they mean that aggressive spirit which has brought devastation to so many peoples of Europe.
I sympathise with the sentiments of those who express the pacifist point of view, but we have to be realists in these days. We are told, and quite rightly, that this war, if it goes on, will mean

the torture and killing of hundreds of thousands, and it may be millions of people, but we are faced with this alternative, that if the war is stopped and aggression is not ended we shall still have the torture and killing of hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions of people. The torture and death of the body is great and terrible in itself, but what is perhaps more terrible and grim is the torture of the mind and the soul when in the concentration camp under the rule of terrorism and aggression. Therefore, I realise that we are faced with two grim alternatives—the terror, the anguish, the sorrow and the death of hundreds of thousands of men and, it may be, women and children, or, on the other hand, the placing of the whole of Europe in the very near future under the heel of the aggressor.
I am hoping that common sense and righteousness will prevail and that at the earliest opportunity some nation will step in and provide a basis upon which a conference may be held. While echoing and appreciating the statement made it the Prime Minister to-day, I would express the hope that the Government will be willing to agree to go into any conference that is convened by any of the neutral nations. That will show that we are willing to go into a conference, but at the same time we must be determined that we will not sacrifice our principles for the sake of securing a patched-up peace.
I am surprised at the illogicality of some of the speeches this afternoon. I am surprised at some Pacifist speakers saying: "Let us have a conference, let us settle this war, but it must be a just peace; Poland must be returned to Poland and Czecho-Slovakia to Czechoslovakia." On that point, there is no division of opinion. We want Czechoslovakia returned to Czecho-Slovakia and Poland returned to Poland. Although the frontiers may not be quite the same, that is not the question. The question is that of self-determination by the people. What we want to see is that those with whom we go into conference will at the conclusion of it keep their pledge and carry out their word.
One would think from some of the speeches that the risks we run when we demanded that a stand should be made against aggression were not realised. The


party of which I have the honour to be a Member has for years demanded that a stand should be made against aggression and has realised that sooner or later a stand would have to be made. They have realised that although the aggressor might give way there was a chance that he might accept our challenge. The challenge has been accepted, and the war which we all deplore is now upon us. One hon. Member said that our objective was to win the war. Our objective is much more than that. It is to win the peace for the peoples of the world and to win an understanding between the peoples of the world, so that the terror of war shall never again blight the world. We have to see* that this aggression stops, but we have to be ready at the earliest moment to accept whatever opportunity may be offered of preventing the further torture and killing of people.
I hope the Government will deem it wise at the very earliest opportunity to ask for the convening of the Assembly of the League of Nations. I understand that the Assembly of the League in September was postponed at the request of the British Government. I hope that although the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs is not to reply to the Debate to-night it will be possible for him to convey this proposal to the members of the Cabinet and to ask for their consideration. We are appreciative of the great work that the Secretary for the Dominions did for the League of Nations and of the stand that he made for its principles. I hope it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to ask the powers that be if it is possible to convene a meeting of the Assembly of the League where it may then be possible to discuss the purposes of the war which is now being waged.
We believe that dark days are ahead. We know that the darkness of the night has fallen upon us, but if we have faith in our ideals and in the cause which we are espousing we can also believe that there is coming upon this stricken world the dawn of a happier day when all men, women and children shall live in peace and harmony.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I rise to speak at what is apparently a late hour in this Debate merely to express, as has already been expressed, the dissatisfaction of some

of us regarding the obscurity in which the Prime Minister left us this afternoon. I agree with what some of the hon. Members on these benches have urged during the evening, that this is the time that the Government should make perfectly clear to the whole world what the objectives of this country are before the slaughter as has been described reaches the magnitude that all of us dread. The time has gone by when we should indulge in mere generalities, however high-sounding they might be. That is not enough. I contend that a more specific and detailed statement of our objectives should be made, and that now. This is absolutely necessary, not merely to satisfy neutral opinion or to satisfy German people, but to clarify the bewilderment and to allay, if it can be allayed, the growing suspicion in the minds of our own people as to the real and possibly as yet unstated war aims of this country and of France. I include the French Government deliberately because we are repeatedly told that perfect accord exists between this Government and that of France. This accord or perfect identity between the two Governments must, of course, cover all major matters, not only on the fighting front but on the home front as well. It must be so, because we have told the world, and the Government benches have stated unceasingly, that we are fighting for democracy, self-determination, freedom of thought and of expression, and for the rights of nations to the forms of Governments that their people desire. That is, we are fighting for all those things that Fascism destroys. In fact, this was stated, I think, in a very fine way by the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in a broadcast speech a few days ago, and it was restated in other words this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition. He said:
We are at war because the British people are united and steadfast in their conviction that there are cherished possessions of mankind that are worth defending, for without them life is empty. We believe in liberty through which alone the mind and soul of the people of the world can find free expression.
This includes the right of Parliamentary government with full freedom of expression. Since we are in agreement on this, can the House be told why the French Government, between whom and this Government such perfect harmony exists to-day, such full and absolute confidence, a Government within whose territories


about 160,000 British soldiers and airmen are at this moment, took the step they did recently, and whether our Government was consulted or their opinion asked, or whether our Government approved or would approve in this fight for liberty and freedom of expression, in this fight for Parliamentary institutions, the horrible and tragic step which was taken recently in France in proscribing over 70 members of the French Chamber and disfranchising thousands of electors?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member is now doing something which is quite contrary to the Rules of the House.

Mr. Davies: I have had it impressed upon me that the interests and desires of this country are the interests and desires of France; that the objectives of this country are identical with those of France, and as we have placed under French law nearly 160,000 of our own people that I was right in referring to this matter. I am sorry I have transgressed the rules of the House in the exigencies of the moment and have mentioned something which I ought not to have mentioned.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not repeat what I have told him is quite contrary to the rules of the House.

Mr. Davies: I will not pursue that subject. At the beginning I expressed my dissatisfaction and misgivings, which are felt by many both inside and outside this House, as to the obscurity, the deliberate obscurity, in which the Government are keeping the country as to their objectives and war aims. As a back bencher and on my own individual responsibility I want to express a hope that the Government are not banking over much upon that degree of support they have received up to now from all sides of the House unless they take the whole House and the whole country more fully into their confidence as to what exactly is in their minds.
I want now to refer to the problems and difficulties which are facing us on the home front, and I want first of all to make a personal confession. Certainly, I shall continue to doubt the aims of the Government unless they are prepared to make a greater contribution towards that which is really vital in democracy and freedom in this country—that is to say, unless they make a contribution to those people who are prepared to support the

aims of the Government by being far more generous towards masses of people in this country who, as a result of our being at war, are suffering a great deal more than they were suffering before, although their conditions were bad then. I think I can hazard an opinion that there are many hon. Members on these benches who will find it extremely difficult to give their support to the Government in the way in which they have done so far unless the Government pay attention to certain vital demands that we made before the war and will continue to make at every opportunity.
We expect the Government, which we are told is engaged in leading the country in a war for high and great ideals, to pay at least some attention to the sufferings and increasing hardships of the old aged pensioners and the unemployed, whose low subsistence allowances and benefits are making life increasingly difficult for them, in view of the increased cost of living and the fact that so many of those who were supporting them before the war are now called up in the service of the country. If the Government are wise, they will appreciate how absolutely important it is in war to sustain the highest morale on the home front. Without the maintenance of that morale on the home front, we shall run the grave risk of not succeeding in this war as most of the people in this country desire. I sincerely hope we shall not be compelled, during the horrible and difficult days which confront us, to urge and press the Government to show a little more humanity, particularly towards those sections of the population whose struggle to exist was a terrible one before the war began, but is intensified every day that the war continues. As long as those injustices continue, we shall unceasingly press the Government to make a gesture in harmony with the spirit which I would like to believe animated the words of the Prime Minister this afternoon. We look for justice first at home before being bidden to fight for it abroad.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Nine o'Clock until Tuesday next, 17th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.